Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Graham Stuart Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds
I agree with much of what the hon. Lady said. We heard on Tuesday some of businesses’ concerns about consultation even relative to the Bill. It is important, when we move on to its exact provisions, that we have proper consultative mechanisms. I have certainly benefited hugely from the input into the process around the Bill and information from the Fairtrade Foundation and Traidcraft. If this Government are truly committed to policy coherence for development, it is important that they ensure that non-governmental organisations with expertise on the ground in international development can comment on preferential trade decisions, which could have a significant impact on different nations.
I was encouraged by what the Minister said to me when we talked about ensuring policy coherence for development when it comes to tax treaties. We need to ensure that that is the reality for our preferential trading regimes as well. One way to do that is by having appropriate consultation with experts in the area.
Finally, the Library note to the Bill, which was enormously useful as always, says that,
“the Government argues that the negative procedure is appropriate here as regulations might be lengthy, technical, frequently changed, not yet known and/or administrative.”
The note goes on to indicate what the EU process is for such schemes. It is quite different from what the Government propose:
“The regulations setting out the current EU scheme…were adopted by the EU Parliament and Council”,
meaning that there was debate within both those organisations. Our country is represented in the Council, and our MEPs represent us in the European Parliament. Then there are
“provisions allowing technical/routine updates through Commission delegated regulations.”
Again, delegated regulations can involve thorough scrutiny. I suggest that in many ways, it is far easier for an MEP to trigger a debate on a piece of delegated legislation on the Floor of the European Parliament than for an MP to do so in the British Parliament, certainly when the negative procedure is used, but also, potentially, when the affirmative procedure is used, given the arithmetic of Committees mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. It is enormously important that we have proper scrutiny of such provisions. One way of embedding that is by having appropriate consultation. We support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. It is an intimidating task that falls to me. I see many familiar faces, all pretty experienced and used to being in Bill Committees, as well as the Rolls-Royce Minister to my left. Fortunately, I am backed by the most extraordinary sea of talent behind me, as well as having on my right a much improved Treasury Whip, compared with his predecessor.
Amendment 108 seeks to create a statutory duty to consult on regulations relating to unilateral trade preferences for developing countries. The Government sought views on unilateral preferences as part of the trade White Paper and proposed creating a trade preference scheme that, as a minimum, maintains the preferential market access of countries in the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences, or GSP. The Government regularly engage with stakeholders on the issue, and—I can undertake—will continue to do so in future.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the Minister speaking on these matters in Committee, and I welcome him to his place. He is absolutely right about the importance of the preferential trade agreements, but perhaps we had a slight misunderstanding. I am not suggesting that opposition to such agreements would be likely. It is just that some organisations such as Fairtrade and Traidcraft have been in touch with us, and they might have better insight into what is happening on the ground in some of those countries. They might be able to provide more information to ensure that the preferential tariffs being provided unilaterally are the most appropriate ones.
The amendment is not about trying to create a blockage in the system. My reason for moving it is not about protecting our industries, but about ensuring that the best possible preferences are put in place for those countries that most need them. That is more likely to happen if there is an opportunity—a requirement, I suppose—for the Government to consult, in particular those bodies and organisations working in the country which can be absolutely clear about the best way forward for any trade deals.
If the Minister is clear that he will consult, that is useful. However, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Graham Stuart
I am disappointed that the hon. Lady will press for a Division, not because the points she has made are not important, not because the Government should not consult and listen to those voices, and not because we should not seek to improve our programme of support for developing countries, but because to put consultation in at that particular point in the process will not deliver the outcome that she desires and might in fact cause damage to the very system that we all want to see improved and working properly after having taken such consultation.
We are in regular contact with external stakeholders. We hold roundtables with representatives of civil society, business and academia, and we have received about 20 responses on trade with developing countries as part of the White Paper consultation. We have heard support from some of the organisations that the hon. Lady mentioned for creating a UK preference scheme, and an understanding of our approach to maintaining in the first instance existing levels of market access as we leave the EU. In effect, we are replicating the system we have now. In the oral evidence earlier this week, the Committee heard someone from the Fairtrade Foundation say of the measure:
“It takes the best bits of current EU policy and brings them over into UK policy.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 21, Q23.]
In some areas, stakeholders have suggested changes for the future, including extending to more countries, simplifying rules and adding more products. All of that can be considered by Government. I suggest to the hon. Lady that it is not too late not to press this amendment to the vote, because I do not think it is appropriate, although I take on board entirely the points she is making.
Kirsty Blackman
I still intend to press this to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Anneliese Dodds
This seems like a sensible amendment, particularly because accessing that nil rate is crucial for so many nations. If there is ambiguity around the conditions, they need to be clarified. Definition, initially, as a least-developed country, is partly with reference to vulnerability to economic shocks. Inability to access that nil-rate, or inability have it reinstated when it should be, could cause economic shocks. As we know, the value of access to the nil-rate to UK markets for least-developed countries is incredibly important—it is £323 million a year. It is important that we have no ambiguity and are absolutely crystal clear.
Graham Stuart
As we have heard, the amendment seeks to clarify that the regulations may provide for the restoration or reinstatement of the nil rate of import duty to least-developed countries where this has been suspended or withdrawn. It is clearly important that we can reinstate preferential rates of import duty after they have been suspended or withdrawn, but the Government do not believe that the amendment is required. The existing power enables the withdrawal or suspension of preferences to least-developed countries to be partial and reversible. That is in line with the general principles relating to regulation-making powers. It goes to show that even when you deal with lawyers as eminent as those at the Law Society of Scotland, they sometimes get it wrong, even technically.
The Government intend to use the power to suspend sparingly and, if used, we will work with the relevant country with a view to reinstating preferences as soon as is appropriate. For trade preferences to be effective, they must be relatively stable, so that businesses have confidence to make decisions to import from beneficiary countries. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Aberdeen North to withdraw the amendments and give a categorical assurance that a provision to do what they suggest is already in place.
Kirsty Blackman
Having looked at subsection (2), I still do not think it is particularly clear. It says that the scheme can make provision about the withdrawal, but then does not make clear that it can be reinstated. I will not press it to a vote because I hope the Government will table an amendment on Report to make it clear that they have the ability to reinstate the rate. I would not like a situation in which the Government were unable to do so because there was a challenge around the language used in the law. The amendment seeks to make it as unambiguous as possible. The hon. Member for Oxford East was absolutely clear on the importance of nil rates, particularly in relation to economic shocks. SNP Members would echo that. I am not going to press it to a vote, but I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider returning to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 80, in schedule 3, page 57, line 18, at end insert “among other things”.
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may have regard to things other than the classification of least developed countries by the UN in amending the list in Part 2 of Schedule 3.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 10, in clause 32, page 19, line 32, after “which” insert
“section (Preferential rates given unilaterally: enhanced parliamentary procedure, etc) (7) applies and”.
This amendment is consequential on NC4.
New clause 4—Preferential rates given unilaterally: enhanced parliamentary procedure, etc—
(1) No regulations may be made by the Treasury in exercise of the power in section 10(1) except in accordance with the steps set out in subsections (2) and (4) to (6).
(2) The first step is that a Minister of the Crown must lay before the House of Commons—
(a) a statement on the matters specified in subsection (3); and
(b) a draft of the regulations that it is proposed be made.
(3) Those matters are the reasons for—
(a) the proposed application and non-application of the scheme to each country listed in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 3;
(b) any proposed conditions for the application of the lower rates or nil rate, and
(c) any proposed provisions about the variation, suspension and withdrawal of the application of the lower rates or nil rate.
(4) The second step is that a Minister of the Crown must make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons setting out, in respect of proposed regulations of which a draft has been laid in accordance with subsection (2)(b)—
(a) each country to which the proposed regulations apply;
(b) the proposed conditions for the application of the lower rates or nil rate, and
(c) the proposed provisions about the variation, suspension and withdrawal of the application of the lower rates or nil rate.
(5) The third step is that the House of Commons passes a resolution arising from the motion made in the form specified in subsection (4) (whether in the form of that motion or as amended).
(6) The fourth step is that the regulations that may then be made must, in respect of any matters specified in subsection (4), give effect to the terms of the resolution referred to in subsection (5).
(7) No regulations may be made under the following provisions unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons—
(a) section 10(4)(a) (meaning of “arms and ammunition”);
(b) paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 (power to add or remove countries from lists in that Schedule).
This new clause establishes a system of enhanced parliamentary procedure for regulations setting lower import duties for eligible developing countries, with a requirement for the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the key provisions of the proposed regulations, and also requires that certain other regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Graham Stuart
Clause 10 ensures that the UK can operate a unilateral trade preference scheme when the UK leaves the EU. It will provide the powers to implement a scheme that will enable the reduction of import duty on goods originating from developing countries. By legislating now, we can ensure continuity for businesses both in the UK and in those countries when the UK leaves the EU.
As you know, Mrs Main, the UK has a long-standing commitment to support developing countries to reduce poverty through trade. One important way to do that is to offer preferential access for their exports to the UK. Trade preferences will also provide opportunities for UK businesses, while enabling UK consumers to benefit from lower product prices. In 2016, the UK imported £19.1 billion of goods from countries receiving trade preferences.
The UK currently provides trade preferences through the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences. Under GSP, the product coverage and import duty rates for countries vary depending on their development levels and trade flows. The granting of a unilateral preference to facilitate the trade of developing countries should, under WTO rules, be based on objective criteria. The European Commission regularly updates EU legislation to reflect that. Examples include making changes to a country’s economic circumstances, or to the list of products in respect of which a country receives a preference. After the UK leaves the EU, similar legislative powers will be needed to establish and manage an effective trade preference scheme. Clause 10 provides for a power to create a trade preference scheme for eligible developing countries.
It is intended that the UK scheme will have tiers of preferences for groups of countries with different economic characteristics. The UK will reduce to zero the import duty on goods originating from the 48 least developed countries, except for the import of arms and ammunitions, which is called “everything but arms”. That fulfils an international commitment made in the UN sustainable development goals, and will provide vital support to the world’s poorest countries.
To maintain continuity at the point of exit, in the first instance the UK intends to mirror the EU’s scheme, which includes two further tiers, known as standard GSP and GSP-plus. The standard tier will reduce import duty on the majority of goods. The enhanced GSP-plus tier will reduce to zero the import duty applicable to those goods covered by the standard tier when such goods originate from economically vulnerable countries that make commitments on human and labour rights, environmental protection and good governance.
The trade preference scheme will allow for the variation, suspension and withdrawal of trade preferences in certain circumstances. For example, where the import of a good threatens serious injury to UK business, the preferential rate could be amended or revert to the standard customs tariff rate. That would take place following discussion with the specialised, expert Trade Remedies Authority. Importantly, a preference may also be varied or withdrawn from a country in response to serious and systematic human rights violations.
Schedule 3 lists the countries that are eligible to receive unilateral trade preferences. It is an objective list based on economic criteria. Countries in part 2 of schedule 3 are currently or recently classified by the UN as least-developed countries. Countries included in part 3 have not been classified by the World Bank as upper middle income or above for the last three consecutive years. Not all of the countries on the list will actually receive the trade preferences. Some of the eligible countries will trade with the UK under a different arrangement, such as a free trade agreement. In such a case, it is intended that the FTA terms will apply to that country instead. Schedule 3 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the list of eligible developing countries when a country’s economic characteristics change. It is important that a UK preference scheme can react swiftly in such circumstances.
Amendment 80 will allow the Secretary of State to consider things beyond the UN’s classification of least-developed countries when deciding which countries must be provided with a nil rate of import duty. When determining whether a country is least developed, the Secretary of State must have regard to its classification by the UN but, importantly, other relevant considerations may be taken into account. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Anneliese Dodds
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in such a prominent role now. In his role as a Whip, he was of course fundamental to the operation of all the discussions that we have had in this Committee room, but it is good to see him speaking on these issues.
As the Minister intimated, the amendment relates to part 4 of schedule 3, which sets out the conditions under which amendments can be made to parts 2 and 3, including the lists of least developed countries and other countries eligible for preferential trading schemes. Colleagues will be aware that those schemes arose out of the work of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which from the 1960s onwards argued for improved market access for developing countries as a means of fostering their economic development. The so-called generalised system of preferences was adopted in 1968.
The whole point about that—the Minister alluded to it—is that a generalised system of preference, just as with a customs union like that of the EU, is allowed as an exemption from the most favoured nation rules within the WTO. Those rules stipulate that no country can have a preferential trade agreement with any other country that is not offered to every other member of the WTO. It is therefore enormously important to have the ability to deviate from WTO rules to promote development.
As the Minister suggested, the arrangements have over time developed at EU level into, effectively, three different layers of preferential scheme for developing countries: the everything-but-arms approach, which applies to the least developed countries; the generalised system of preferences—GSP—and then GSP-plus which, as the Minister said, offers additional favourable terms to those countries fulfilling environmental and good governance requirements.
Will the Minister clarify one issue relating to GSP-plus, and my reading of the existing Bill, with regard to classification as another eligible developing country under part 3 of schedule 3? I thought that the Bill referred to the Secretary of State developing regulations with a view to
“among other things…classification by the World Bank”
and that those “other things” were not just economic factors but human rights and environmental considerations, as is the case with the GSP-plus system in the EU. I think that was what he intended to say, but it was not crystal clear and it would be helpful if he would clarify it.
Our amendment is focused not on the arrangements for GSP and GSP-plus countries, which I believe are all gathered under part 4 but, in practice, on the least-developed country regime—the successor to everything-but-arms, which the Government say they want us to take on board. It is positive that the Bill provides the possibility for a three-year transition period, so that countries currently described as least-developed countries can remain in the scheme for another three years, as a graduation period. However, particularly with regard to current EU developments, it seems that in the Bill, the Government are missing out on an important opportunity.
The Minister was correct to say that the current everything-but-arms regime does not explicitly include reference to human rights and the environment or other criteria, but there is pressure at EU level for those factors to be taken much more closely into account. Our country could play a key role in that. That is very important when we look at how the everything-but-arms process has worked in practice.
A very good case study is the sugar trade in Cambodia. The sugar industry in Cambodia has grown exponentially over recent times due to changes in the overall sugar price, but also due to the imposition of a preferential trading regime. That has not led to sustainable development. Instead, very large global conglomerates have captured much of the market. Ninety seven per cent. of Cambodia’s sugar exports went to the EU in 2012. Tate & Lyle bought 99% of those, and companies linked to it—or some of those which it has now sold off—were controlling much of the new sugar plantations in Cambodia.
Those plantations have been enormously controversial because they have involved the wholescale removal of families from their smallholdings. Many people illegally transferred into Thailand because the sugar plantations forced them off the land. The growth in the industry has not led to an increase in people’s incomes. In fact, the opposite has happened: it has led to many people becoming destitute who formerly were able to live at subsistence level at least. Some families from Cambodia have even taken cases against Tate & Lyle to our High Court because they were dispossessed of their land and are no longer able to live sustainably.
Other changes occurred around sugar in the EU—minimum pricing and its removal—but surely, given that example, we should think about whether we need to do more to try to stop developments of the kind that existed under the everything-but-arms initiative from occurring in any UK-specific schemes. There is certainly an argument in the development community about whether it is appropriate for human rights matters to be taken into account in trade deals. Particularly in the sugar market, very large corporations are making a huge benefit, but that has not led to a more sustainable income for ordinary people—quite the opposite.
In addition, it is important that other factors can be taken into account in these classifications and in determining whether countries should be on the list. Three years is a good graduation period but it may be necessary for some countries to have longer, especially if they are subject to a particular economic or other problem.
Furthermore, I understand that there are cases where countries have used additional considerations in relation to classification under these kinds of regimes. Norway has said that if a country is not classified as a least-developed country but is part of a customs union with other least-developed countries, it is a good thing because it promotes regional integration. That nation is also likely to share many trade characteristics with the least-developed countries, and therefore should be able to be allotted trade preferences on the same basis. Norway at least believes that it does not need a waiver from the WTO for that—not only is that not being actioned by the WTO, but Norway believes that it does not even need to approach the WTO for a waiver. We could be more ambitious in that regard, and I hope that as a result the Minister takes our suggestion on board.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her passionate espousal of a number of interesting issues. I will respond as best I can, but my three weeks in this post probably does not match her many years of expertise.
As highlighted, clause 10 and schedule 3 ensure that the UK can operate a unilateral trade preference scheme when the UK leaves the EU, supporting our long-standing commitment to support developing countries. The group of least-developed countries, as set out in schedule 3, are among the poorest in the world. As I said, providing nil-rate import duty access to goods from those countries helps them to reduce poverty through trade and is part of the UN’s sustainable development goals. Clause 10 enshrines that in UK law, ensuring that the commitment will be maintained in future. The clause is not prescriptive about the level of import duty for other eligible developing countries—they are listed in part 3 of schedule 3—that are not designated as least developed. However, as I have mentioned and as the Government set out in the trade White Paper, the Government’s policy intention is to ensure continuity at the point of exiting the EU by replicating the market access of all countries currently part of the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences.
I take on board the fact that the hon. Lady talked about being more ambitious. We have said that, as a Government, we wish to be more ambitious, but we need to bring into place in this country continuity from the existing system and give assurance and confidence that we are not opening up. If we open up the issues more widely, we will create uncertainty as to what we will continue—we may be strengthening in some areas; we might weaken in others. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to accept that I need to think and talk to her over time about some of the issues that she has raised. We do want to be more ambitious in the future, but for now, we believe that the right thing to do is to have continuity with the existing system and bring that as effectively as we can into UK law.
The amendment proposes that changes to schedule 3 be done by the affirmative procedure. As I have mentioned, eligible developing countries will be determined with regard to the classification by the World Bank or UN. The Government need to be able to react promptly to a country’s change in economic circumstances. Similarly, the power to specify the meaning of the term “arms and ammunition” is intended to allow the preference scheme to adopt the same nomenclature enabled through clause 8 for the customs tariff, which will itself be constrained by international nomenclature.
As I said, our intention is closely to replicate the EU’s preference scheme, including the GSP-plus tier. That is the enhanced tier of preferences available for economically vulnerable countries that ratify the international conventions I have mentioned. We expect beneficiary countries to continue to respect the conditions in GSP-plus, including meeting those international obligations. Those conditions will be set out in secondary legislation, as clause 10(2)(b) allows.
The question is asked why we would give preference to Cambodia even though land disputes have occurred following the EU’s everything-but-arms access. A key objective of the UK is building the UK’s prosperity by increasing exports and investment and promoting sustainable global growth. Greater prosperity leads to greater stability. We are aware that the Government of Cambodia have taken steps to improve their issue of economic land concessions, such as introducing a compensation process. Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment cancelled more than 20% of all economic land concessions. For now, therefore, we continue to work through the EU’s GSP monitoring system, and we seek to bring the existing system into UK law.
Peter Dowd
I rise to speak to the Opposition’s new clause 4 and will also touch on schedule 3, if I may. We do want to require a vote in the House of Commons on the giving of preferential rates unilaterally to developing countries—I do not mean in relation to amendment 80, but in future. We can all agree that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that our trade policy works for everyone, including the poorest in society, and how tariffs are set has an important bearing on that.
The Minister was very clear and comprehensive about the Government’s direction of travel. I welcome him to his position—as a former Whip, he has come out of the darkness into the light—but I also agree that the current Government Whip, the hon. Member for Macclesfield, is much better.
Graham Stuart
I will respond to some of the points that the hon. Member for Bootle has just made. I pay tribute to him for featuring so well. He must be another fine engine, if not a Rolls-Royce. I have certainly heard him purr in this Committee Room on many an occasion. As with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, I have admired the style and content he has presented.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of whether the trade preferences will undermine human and labour rights. The UK has a long-standing commitment to universal human rights, and that will be reflected in our trade preference scheme. As part of transitioning EU arrangements, we will maintain a similar approach to human rights commitments in UK trade policy.
The hon. Gentleman raised Burma, based on the Rohingya situation, and mentioned the fact that the EU has, after all, suspended Burma before. I agree that this is an important issue. The UK is deeply concerned by the violence taking place in Rakhine state. The UK has been a leader in responding to the crisis in terms of both speed and size, helping to meet the urgent humanitarian needs that have arisen. For now, we continue to work through the EU’s GSP monitoring system. Under a UK scheme, it will be possible for countries to have their preferences suspended, although we intend to reserve suspension powers for serious and systematic human rights violations.
We must make sure that when we act, it is always to tackle the problems in those developing countries, and that the long list that was laid out—including climate change, forestry and various aspects of human rights—is not used as an excuse for protectionism of interests in this country while we are morally posing ourselves as helping those in developing countries. That is why the presumption is that we should let them trade with us; however, in serious cases we should act. I hope that both this Committee and the House can continue to take that proportionate and balanced approach.
On the clauses that the hon. Gentleman says give too much power to the Government, and on the question whether there is sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and due process in setting up this preference scheme, I would say that these powers are moderate and entirely necessary to create and maintain a trade preference scheme for developing countries, which is a goal that we all share. The overarching principles of the preference scheme are set out in primary legislation. That is important. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the inclusion of these principles and powers throughout the passage of the Bill. Parliament will later have the opportunity to consider regulations setting details of the scheme. The scheme will need to be updated regularly. As economies grow or contract, their eligibility for trade preferences will change over time. We must ensure that the legislation is kept up to date to ensure that we trade on fair terms and avoid challenge from the WTO.
I did not respond earlier to the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford East about amendment 80 and why the Secretary of State cannot consider factors other than the UN’s classification when deciding which countries are least developed. The Government have chosen to enshrine in UK law the obligation to provide nil-rate import duty to least developed countries. This meets a commitment the UK made in the UN sustainable development goals to implement duty-free market access for LDCs. As a result, there needs to be significant certainty on the list of LDCs in part 2 of schedule 3, because it is in primary legislation that this legal duty will be in place. Therefore it is right that the Secretary of State is closely bound to the internationally recognised UN classification. The distinction in language between sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) in part 4 of schedule 3 reinforces this point.
As a final remark, I will quote the Fairtrade Foundation, which said that
“from the perspective of developing countries, where in some instances there is a high dependency on the UK market…changes to tariffs could make or break the livelihoods of producers. If you were to ask for a vote on every single tariff change, that would not be workable, so this is about finding the right balance”.—[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 19, Q21.]
Being balanced and proportionate is the basis of the Government approach, and I ask the Opposition not to press their proposed amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 11
Quotas
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Second sitting)
Graham Stuart Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I think that question has been posed in three different ways, so unless Mr Blackwell has anything else to say, I am not sure he can add to it.
Joel Blackwell: No.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Q
Joel Blackwell: It is important that Members take note of the delegated powers Committee’s concerns on particular issues that it has highlighted. I do think that there is an issue with the use of the made affirmative procedure for cases that do not seem to me to be urgent; that procedure is used for reasons of urgency and should be confined to that. I have never been entirely clear or comfortable with the use of the first instance affirmative procedure. If it has been viewed that a provision should be subject to the affirmative procedure for the first time, it should be subject to the affirmative procedure all the time. The two Henry VIII powers are subject to the negative procedure as well. So there are issues with the Bill.
In terms of saying that the Bill is fine, yes, you have to use framework legislation for issues like this. What concerns the Hansard Society is when framework Bills are laid before Parliament and contain no detail whatsoever on the powers that they wish to confer on Ministers. The lack of an opportunity for the Government to provide draft regulations alongside scrutiny of this Bill, for example, will be a matter of concern, and is something we raised about the Welfare Reform Act 2012. So there are issues with framework Bills.
If there is a huge lack of detail on what the Government intend to do with delegated powers, what usually happens is that you get situations that we would like to avoid where you have clause 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that is so wide that there are issues regarding the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive.
Jonathan Reynolds
Q
Joel Blackwell: That is a question I have been posing to myself for the last few days. Honestly, no. We have to be careful, knowing that the procedures for the scrutiny of delegated legislation in the Commons are inadequate, that we do not just fall back on using a strengthened, enhanced or super-affirmative procedure for everything when the affirmative procedure would be appropriate. We need to play the ball rather than the man, to use a football analogy. You have to look at the powers that are brought in front of you and decide there and then whether the scrutiny period is appropriate.
The problem with this Bill, and with other supply Bills, is that the vehicle to highlight inappropriateness in the degree of scrutiny and the appropriateness of delegated powers is the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and there is no counterpart in the House of Commons. The Bill just highlights the lack of that counterpart. But no, looking at the powers, I do not think that the strengthened scrutiny procedure would be useful in this case.
Emma Hardy
To put that into the Bill.
Dr Laura Cohen: Into the Bill. Can I give an example on the tiles review? This goes back some of the evidence given this morning. The European Commission contacted more than 1,000 known importers and users of tiles. Only 11 companies replied to the sampling form. No user or user association came forward. After the review was published, the Tile Association, which includes UK retailers and tilers as well as overseas manufacturers, published in its magazine an article saying that when they had surveyed their members a year ago,
“A sizeable majority of respondents were in favour of the tariffs continuing and also believed that the level of tariff was about right.”
The EU—an example similar to Gareth’s—as part of its calculation had said that this would add about €1 to a square metre of tiles. It is not a large amount.
Gareth Stace: We do not have any detail of what that economic interest test is going to be. It could be there on the face of the Bill in primary legislation; it could be wishful thinking that it might be elsewhere. It cannot be that the Government do not know what that might be. We set out in July in a paper here exactly what we felt the economic interest test should be and the weighting it should apply to producers, users and importers and so on. We set it out in firm detail there, so there is no reason why it could not have been in the primary legislation.
Graham Stuart
Q
Dr Laura Cohen: We could have much lower duties.
Graham Stuart
So we may not.
Dr Laura Cohen: Given that the lesser duty rule in the EU is becoming conditional, that is one strand of it and may give rise to lower duties. We have no clarity about the methodology for working out the dumping margin, particularly where there are distortive economies, and the EU has that clarity. The triple test—the economic interest test by the TRA followed by the economic interest test by the Secretary of State, followed by the public interest test, actually may result in no duties. It is very unlikely that the duties are going to be higher than the EU and quite likely, given what is in the Bill at the moment, that they will be lower.
Graham Stuart
Q
Dr Laura Cohen: We do not know what the economic interest test is going to be, but there are two further opportunities over and above what is currently in the EU for overruling it. We have had some concerns, which we shared with Government, about the economic research published by the Department for International Trade on Friday 5 January, which could help determine how that is carried out. We can share that with the Committee after this meeting if that would be helpful.
Graham Stuart
Q
Dr Laura Cohen: We do not need one under the WTO, but if we do, it is about keeping it really simple, with a presumption in favour of eliminating the trade-distorting effects of injurious dumping, and restoring effective competition.
Graham Stuart
Q
Dr Laura Cohen: All three tests should have that presumption.
Ian Cranshaw: The specific issue is the language: there is not that specific phrase. There is a presumption in favour of duties written into the Bill, and we would like to see that specifically written much clearer than it currently is. That would reassure many of our companies.
Nic Dakin
Q
Gareth Stace: The timescales are not set out clearly enough. I do not want to go over old ground, but the hoops to go through at all the different stages will only lengthen that process. I am sure that will happen, calculating injury and dumping, but if was just dumping, that would happen very quickly.
I might have said already that in the US, provisional measures come in after 45 days and in the EU they come after nine months, which is coming down to seven. The UK has the opportunity to say that we will do it at six months, and we always—unless there are circumstances where it is not appropriate—apply retrospective duties of three months. So you get provisional duties coming after three months, which sends a very strong message to the market: do not dump your illegally traded goods here in the UK.
Ian Cranshaw: I think we would all be disappointed if we could not expedite the EU system, when it has to canvass views across 28 member states. We would have to canvass views in just the UK, so if we cannot bring that nine months—soon to be seven months—down further, an opportunity will have been missed.
Dr Laura Cohen: There is a tremendous opportunity here for Brexit. If an industry is suffering injury and dumping, it is really important that it gets sorted out quickly.
Draft Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2017
Graham Stuart Excerpts(8 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Dowd
I did keep my eyes peeled for this particular issue. I notice there is also one spec-tater in the Gallery.
The Opposition support the order and measures of this nature, but I want to reiterate the importance of transparency and value for money in all our public bodies. The National Audit Office says that its work led to audited savings of £1.21 billion in 2015, which it estimated was its highest level of financial savings to the taxpayer to date, equivalent to £19 saved for every £1 spent. We have to ensure that public auditors have the independence and resources to carry out their job effectively, therefore guaranteeing strong governance.
However, the NAO’s own statement of accounts says that in real terms its net resources are expected to decline by 15% between 2012-13 and 2019-20. While the NAO has made impressive progress in becoming cost-efficient, can the Minister confirm that in future it will receive the level of resources it needs to continue with its high standards of public audit? I hope that was crisp enough for you, Mr Paisley.
Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)
Graham Stuart ExcerptsThursday 19th October 2017
(8 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance (No.2) Act 2017 View all Finance (No.2) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 October 2017 - (19 Oct 2017)
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to work under your stewardship, Mr Walker, and your perfect pronunciation of the word “schedule”.
I would like to deal with the Government’s overall intention behind this group of clauses and schedules reforming non-domiciled status. Under the measures being introduced through the Bill, an individual who has been resident in the UK for 15 out of the last 20 years will be considered UK-domiciled for the purposes of income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. From appearances, one might think that overall the Government are finally doing away with non-dom status, but that is far from fact.
The changes in the measures are superficial—one could even say artificial—and designed to give the impression that the Government are seriously clamping down on tax avoidance. Why else would an exemption be built into the measures for offshore trusts? Another question is: why else would the Government have given a grace period for those non-doms affected to get an offshore trust if they do not have one already? Another question begging for an answer is: why else would the Government have actively signposted the changes for non-doms, which has set hares running? It seems to me that those are things that the architect of the measures would do if they were of a mind to completely undermine the measures’ effectiveness. They close one loophole and—hey presto!—create another. Put a new coat of paint on it and no one will notice—job done.
I of course accept that some people will be caught by the changes, but I imagine that it will be the few—and “few” is the operative word—who cannot afford the financial advice fees and legal fees to set up an offshore trust. Once again, we are talking about low-hanging fruit. In my opinion and that of some of my colleagues, this is indicative of the Government’s tax policy. They are doing this rather than tackling tax avoidance undertaken by wealthy individuals who are—I will mix my rodent analogies here—squirrelling their money away in offshore trusts, or large multinational corporations that play cat and mouse with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, with, in this situation, HMRC being the mouse and the one that rarely roars to boot. It is happening daily: certain people are not paying their fair share, and the Government are instead attempting to squeeze further taxes out of everyone else. That is no doubt motivated in part by the dwindling resources of HMRC, whose staff levels have been cut by 17% since 2010. The shame that HMRC does not have the resources to clamp down on the use of offshore trusts is part of the motivation behind these measures, but I am not convinced that the Government have the inclination to do so, either.
The delayed timetabling of the measures will also have an impact on their effectiveness. They were first proposed in the summer Budget 2015, they were consulted on in late 2016, and they were meant to be debated and come into effect in March 2017. Of course, we had an unnecessary snap election, whose mother was hubris and whose father turned out to be pyrrhic. As Plutarch noted—it is always worthwhile getting in a quote from Plutarch:
“If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”
I ask Government Members opposite to bear that in mind when the next election comes.
Peter Dowd
I actually was going to bring that, but the Chair has difficulty enough pronouncing English to check me on my Latin.
Added to that, we had a zombie Parliament throughout the summer, with the Minister announcing that the measures would not be brought back until September. In total, that means that the best-advised non-doms will have had two years’ advance notice, while even those with little to no advice would have had seven months to prepare, even without the Government’s grace period. That is why the Opposition are proposing that, at the very least, the Government conduct—the Minister will not be surprised to hear this—a review to assess the impact of leaving in the exemption for offshore trusts on the effectiveness of the measures.
Our opposition to these measures is well noted. I raised concerns over them on Second Reading of the Finance Act 2017. We raised them further in private discussions with the Government, to no avail, as well as during the Ways and Means resolutions debate and on Second Reading of the Bill, so our view is fairly well laid out. What we want is genuinely not unrealistic or far removed from the observations of most members of the public, which is, in short, the removal of the exemption for offshore trusts from these clauses and schedules. It is simply lubricious—I was thinking of another word—to introduce measures abolishing non-dom status while at the same time creating further loopholes. I would have used “disingenuous”, but no doubt you would have ruled me out of order, Mr Walker.
I ask the Minister once more, as I have at every stage of the Bill, to remove the exemption for offshore trusts. If the Government are truly committed to abolishing non-dom status and not just paying lip service to it, the Minister should have no problem doing so.
Ways and Means
Graham Stuart ExcerptsWednesday 6th September 2017
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance (No.2) Act 2017 View all Finance (No.2) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Dowd
I remind the hon. Gentleman that businesses are coming to Labour because of the mess that the Conservative party is making of Brexit.
Peter Dowd
I can name them.
None of the measures before the House address the growing black hole in the public finances, which is the direct result of the Government’s mismanagement and economic incompetence. As things stand, there is a £3 billion black hole in the public finances, made up of the Chancellor’s U-turn on the proposed increases to class 4 national insurance contributions for the self-employed on low and middle incomes; the unlawful employment tribunal fees the Government have been forced to repay; and, yes, the £1 billion bung to the Democratic Unionist party to buy its silence and compliance. Nor do the Government acknowledge the added cost to the taxpayer of delaying the implementation date for “Making Tax Digital”, which they were warned was problematic by all and sundry.
Make no mistake: this is no ordinary Finance Bill we are talking about. If passed, a number of its measures will create a charter championing tax avoidance and leaving billions of pounds of tax uncollected. Using smokescreens and false titles, the Treasury has hidden to the unsuspecting eye giant loopholes for offshore trusts in complicated tax measures. While claiming to end non-domicile status, the Chancellor is at the same time encouraging people to bend the rules and siphon off money overseas into tax haven trusts. He has excluded from one of the Bill’s key deeming measures non-doms who have inherited their status. The Government are on the side of tax dodgers, not taxpayers.
There is nothing in the measures before the House that will address the resource crisis that HMRC is facing as the Government plan to cut £83 million from its budget, along with the debacle that is its 10-year modernisation programme.
Draft Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016
Graham Stuart Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Hands
That is not uniformly the case. I will go on to explain the three schemes that are affected: the local government pension scheme, many of whose members have been high earners in their careers; the civil service pension scheme; and the judiciary pension scheme. Although there are low-paid workers in some of those schemes, I do not accept that they are uniformly lower-paid workers; indeed, there will be some fairly high-paid workers in those schemes.
Returning to my point, scheme members want to be treated fairly and consistently, and the order we are debating today delivers that. There should also be certainty for schemes themselves. Not choosing September’s CPI figure would create uncertainty for schemes. If a consistent measure of CPI was not used, schemes would find it difficult to determine what the correct measure of prices revaluation should be, both when assessing the cost of the scheme and when setting employer contribution rates.
It would not be unusual for a scheme actuary to place an uncertainty figure in the valuation if we decided not to use the standard September figure, particularly if it was considered that there was doubt about whether a consistent prices metric would be used. That would have the potential to put upward pressure on employer contribution rates, and affect the amount of money that employers have available to employ staff.
Furthermore, choosing a correct and stable measure of prices ensures fairness across schemes. That is a crucial detail. It would be unfair for those schemes that chose faster revaluation, instead of a better revaluation rate, to benefit from both fast accrual and a more generous revaluation metric than the one that they decided upon. That goes back to my point about the balance in each of the schemes that was arrived at after consultation and negotiations with the relevant trade unions.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who are tempted to suggest that we should give flexibility to the Government so that we can have a more generous position in this year should bear in mind that overall it would be unwise to trust Government to choose between various measures? Ultimately, we would expect their choice to be at the expense of the people, rather than that of the Treasury. Therefore, I applaud him for suggesting that we have total consistency and accept that consistency will apply even if the September figure goes peculiarly upward in future.
Greg Hands
Although I cannot go down the same road as my hon. Friend does about trusting the Government, I can say that his point about consistency is right. If there is any sense that the Government were able to move around between different months, according to political whim or motivation, that would introduce a huge amount of uncertainty into the schemes and open up the Government to lobbying. It would also probably open up all of us to being lobbied to choose one month or another. That might end up coming at the cost of the general taxpayer as well as creating instability in the scheme. Consistency is extremely important.
That leads me to the third area: certainty for taxpayers. To depart from what was agreed would also be unfair on the taxpayer. It is possible to argue that revaluing by 0% does not cost much, and that would be right. It would not cost that much, for now. But what about the future? If in the far future there were to be significant deflation, the cost of not revaluing negatively could be far greater. It is unfair in principle that members should be able to benefit only from the upside of inflation, while being shielded from the downside.
To illustrate my argument, I can share with Members a quote from page 72 of the report from the independent review of public service pensions undertaken by Lord Hutton:
“If there is no mechanism for reducing pensions in payment to maintain their real value then there is asymmetric sharing of risk between members and government, since government bears the risk of high inflation and members benefit from periods of deflation”.
Furthermore, many other taxpayers are in defined contribution schemes. The value of defined contribution schemes, of course, goes up and down based on the prevailing economic circumstances at that time and the valuation of bonds, stocks and whatever else might be put into that scheme. Members of the public who are not lucky enough to be in one of the highly valuable public service pension schemes for our highly valued public sector workers, but who face uncertainty from their own defined contribution schemes, should not be expected to subsidise public servants in this way from a potential negative revaluation drawn on by deflation. the arguments for continuing to use existing Government policy on the preferred measure of inflation for this order are clear and compelling.
I want to move on briefly to the effect the measure has on particular workers, perhaps answering some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Walsall North. The only schemes which will actually be negatively revalued directly under the terms of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 are those for the civil service, local government and the judiciary. However, you will be interested to know, Mr Bailey, that as the ministerial pension scheme relies on the provisions of this revaluation order, a Minister’s career average pension pot will also be negatively revalued. I am not looking for sympathy for myself and the Treasury Whip, but it is worth pointing out that there are knock-on effects beyond this immediate order.
I now return to the main question about the three pension schemes. To give a worked-out example, a local government worker who earns £21,000 a year will earn around £530 of pension this year. That pension pot will be revalued by minus 0.1%, which means a reduction in the nominal value of that pension pot of less than 50p. Even with a comparable pension pot from the previous year—remember that the local government pension scheme was introduced a year early—the total reduction would be less than £1. A civil servant earning £26,000 a year will earn around £600 of pension this year. That pension pot will be revalued by minus 0.1%, which means a reduction in the pension pot of around 60p. So this is not an attack on public sector pensions or on lower paid public sector workers, nor should it be portrayed as one.
In conclusion, the Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016 is an important aspect of the move towards more sustainable and fairer pension schemes for public service workers and for taxpayers. As Lord Hutton has said, these recommendations provide a balanced deal. It will ensure that public service workers continue to have good pensions and that taxpayers can have confidence that the costs are controlled. Revaluing in line with scheme agreements that have already been made is an important part of the deal and I look forward to the debate.
Tax Avoidance and Multinational Companies
Graham Stuart Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
I am going to press on, because time is short.
I have written to the Competition Commissioner to request a formal investigation of this deal. There was a visible flicker of life from the Chancellor a few days ago. In the pages of Monday’s Financial Times he let it be known that he might, after all, favour country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations. Tax experts and campaigners and I have long argued that this is a vital step towards transparency, and therefore towards fair collection. By revealing in their accounts in which tax jurisdiction their revenues were earned, a proper rate of tax can be applied to multinational companies. If the Chancellor now supports country-by-country reporting, I welcome that. However, the impression was given that even without international agreement the Government would act. Is this the case, or was it just a publicity stunt that has now been dropped?
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) referred to Bermuda. On the “Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday a senior Google representative revealed that the company has £30 billion of profits resting in Bermuda, a British overseas territory. This is in order to avoid US tax rates. We now know that the Chancellor has been lobbying the EU and instructing his MPs to vote against anti-avoidance measures against Bermuda. It is a disgrace.
It was also revealed last week that Government Ministers have met Google 25 times over the past 18 months. I note that the Prime Minister himself has spoken at Google’s conference not once, but twice. If Ministers are to meet anyone, my advice is that they go and meet the trade union representatives of HMRC staff. With almost half the workforce having been laid off, and with offices having been closed across the country, it is widely known that morale is at rock-bottom, especially with the loss of highly experienced and expert staff. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, a reference has just been made to declaring an interest. I have no interest to declare. I think that was a reference to the Public and Commercial Services Union and part of its trade union group. It does not fund the Labour party or my constituency. There is no interest to be declared.
We cannot allow the Government to go on like this. Trust and confidence in our tax system is being undermined. Every pound in tax avoided by these large corporations is a pound taken from the pockets of honest taxpayers. It is also a pound not spent on our schools, our NHS and our police. We need a real tax reform agenda, based on the principle of complete openness and transparency. First, that means, as a start, the publication of the details of this deal in full, so that we and our constituents can judge whether it is fair enough. Secondly, we need real country-by-country reporting of a company’s activities, and not just a secret exchange of information between tax authorities, but full publication so that we can all judge.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor said that he would set out his ideas, and I had hoped that he would talk about a more revolutionary change to the methods of taxation. With the massed ranks of corporate lawyers put up against national tax jurisdictions, it is an uneven battle, so perhaps we need some more radical thinking altogether.
John McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in this matter over many years and has regularly been in debates with me in this Chamber. I fully agree that we need a more radical approach.
Let me complete the recommendations briefly, because I think that they will open up a much wider debate. Thirdly, we need an end to mates’ rates and sweetheart deals with major corporations. Tax law should be applied fairly whatever the size of the company. Fourthly, we need full transparency in the relationship between Ministers and companies, so I want to see publication of all the minutes of all such meetings. Fifthly, we need firmer action to curb the tax avoidance industry, so action should be taken against the advisers when the tax avoidance schemes they designed are found to be unlawful by tax tribunals and courts. The same advisers advise Her Majesty’s Treasury and help write our tax laws. That is unhealthy and unacceptable.
Financial Conduct Authority
Graham Stuart Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Garnier
I am regretting using the footballing analogy. I am not actually a huge football fan myself.
We have to look across the piece. The FCA has undoubtedly got it completely wrong in many cases—on interest rate hedging products and other things—and it is right that Parliament holds it to account, including through bodies such as the Treasury Select Committee, as a member of which I have a different point of view. I do not share the frustrations of those needing these debates or trying to get appointments upheld by the regulator; I can go along and get stuck in, along with other Committee members. That is the right way to do it.
It is also important to consider the successes. The FCA has managed to bring substantial fines for foreign exchange and LIBOR rigging. It even managed to bring a case through the Serious Fraud Office that sadly resulted in no convictions last week, when six foreign exchangers, who allegedly tried to fiddle the fixings, were acquitted. None the less, to get it to court was quite a success. The FCA has taken over responsibility for consumer credit and debt management from the Office of Fair Trading. It has protected consumers by banning retail sales of contingent convertibles—a technical thing to do with the resolution of failing banks.
Last February, the regulator published a paper aimed at providing help for firms that wanted to look after vulnerable consumers. On encouraging competition in the banking industry, the regulator, along with the PRA, created a challenger bank unit in January to help challenger bank entrants by providing the best regulation and thereby encouraging competition in the banking market. It has also provided an innovation hub, specifically aimed at the “fin tech” area, to help new entrants into the financial services sector to navigate the authorisation process. The regulator is, therefore, trying to do a number of things, and we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
People worry about several issues. There is a big question about whether the Government are interfering with the regulator. Have they been interfering directly and explicitly? Are they taking it easy on the banks? I suspect that the cancellation of the thematic review might be a red herring. Most banks, given the 8% increase on their corporation tax rate, would argue that the Government are not being lenient on them. The Government are levying a bank levy that will help to repay taxpayers for all the money used to bail out the banks.
The reverse burden of proof has been reversed, but the implementation of ring fencing by 2019 will come at a fantastic cost to the banks of several billion pounds, in order to make sure that when the next financial crisis hits—there will definitely be another one—the collapsing banks do not take down other banks with them.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a strong case for the role of the FCA in terms of systemic, high-level regulation, but does he think it is fit for purpose in protecting consumers, entrepreneurs and individuals who, from that high level, might not look so important?
Mark Garnier
That is obviously the whole point of the debate. The answer, overall, is yes, but I think the regulator gets it wrong on occasions, which is why we have the Treasury Committee and debates such as this—to hold its feet to the fire on specific issues, such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy.
It is important to remember that this is a conduct regulator for a global business. It is worth bearing it in mind that 2.2 million people work in the industry. It represents about 12% of our GDP and generates about £65 billion a year in tax receipts. This industry is a global industry, and we should be careful about criticising it so vehemently by agreeing on a motion of no confidence. What message would it send to the rest of the world about our ability to regulate the huge amounts of international capital—running into trillions of pounds—that comes and finds a safe haven here in the UK with a regulator it can trust? If we say that the regulator is not fit for purpose, it will send a profound message to a significant part of our economy.
We need to cast an eye to the new chief executive. Andrew Bailey, who is coming from the PRA, has been in front of the Treasury Committee and the Banking Commission many times. I for one have found no reason not to think him an extraordinarily pragmatic, intelligent and wise regulator. Time will tell, and we will have to see how he gets on at the FCA, but it is important that he starts his career at the FCA with our good will, not with the feeling that the FCA is a problem to deal with.
Finally, I want to confront the big question about the possible interference of the Treasury. No matter how many times I ask people—either explicitly or by trying to get them drunk—I can find no evidence of any interference from the Treasury in the work of the regulator. There is possibly an implied interference, however, and one solution could be to give the Treasury Committee a power of veto over the hiring of the next chief executive.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing the debate.
I declare an interest: before coming here, following in the footsteps of my parents who ran their own insurance and financial advice business for 45 years, I ran my own regulated insurance brokerage for nearly 20 years. It is fair to say that I have seen first hand the evolution and revolution of the industry over quite a sustained period of time. I fear I might be one of the only Members tonight to stand in support of a particular sector of the industry.
I could talk about many issues, but I want to use my experience and understanding of this area to focus on the impact of regulation on the insurance industry, specifically the insurance broking sector. There is an understanding of the need for, and acceptance of, fair regulation by the insurance industry as a whole, but at the forefront of any such measures should always be the principle to protect the consumer not just from financial risk, but from professional negligence. To achieve that, a regulator should work in partnership with the profession to understand the service it provides and then to create an effective model that targets the key concerns. That regulatory solution should be delivered in a cost-effective and proportionate way that does not unjustly burden businesses of differing sizes and incomes.
Unfortunately, it has not been my experience, or that of many representatives of the insurance industry I regularly speak with, that that is currently the case with the FCA. General insurance brokers contribute 1% of GDP to the UK economy, arranging 54% of all general insurance and 78% of all commercial insurance business. In 2013, the British Insurance Brokers’ Association commissioned research, carried out by London Economics, which found that the UK broking market is the most expensive on the planet in terms of the direct cost of regulation. The UK’s cost is double that of its next global competitor, Singapore, and more than four times the cost of other major European markets with which it is supposed to be on a level playing field. Our regulators’ approach to gold-plating has seen the UK become the butt of European jokes, with the recently retired European Commission head of insurance referring to UK gold-plating by the FCA as “Sauce Anglaise”.
The FCA recently increased the minimum fee for the A19 general insurance intermediary fee block by 8.4%, with the largest UK brokers privately indicating that they pay “comfortably” over £1 million a year in fees to the regulator. Worryingly, in its response to BIBA following the rise, the FCA indicated that, if the increase had been in line with the annual funding requirement, the rise could have been even greater—46% over four years.
The FCA recently divulged the breakdown of the A19 fee block, which showed that £16.4 million, or 56.9%, of that block is used for “supervision”. However, 75% of BIBA members are small firms with fewer than 10 members of staff and would not be subject to regular visits or in-depth inspections. Therefore, the proportion of the fee block that is used for supervision appears distorted and suggests that UK insurance brokers are paying for supervision of other, non-insurance broker entities. Furthermore, £1.8 million, or 6.3%, is used to pay for “markets”, principally the UK Listing Authority. That is not an area of regulation that general insurance brokers would face, which further suggests they are cross-subsidising others’ regulation.
In addition to the direct cost of regulation, there are also substantial indirect costs, which include the need to employ either in-house staff or consultants to ensure that the numerous regulations, thematic reviews, market studies, consultation papers and ad hoc requests for information are managed.
Graham Stuart
I wonder whether there has been a reduction in small companies. Heavy regulation often favours larger organisations, so it cuts out the entrepreneurial and small business in a market town in my constituency above a shop, while it favours the large companies, which then gouge the public for higher fees. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Craig Tracey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was indeed my experience. I was coming on to say how many firms have disappeared since regulation was introduced. To put it into context, in my final years as a broker, 80% of my time was spent working on compliance rather than being productive in my business. That was a small brokerage providing a valuable high street presence to people who needed access to somebody they knew and trusted. A clear case can be made that firms that abide by the rules should not be the ones that pay for the misbehaviours and increased regulation caused by other firms.
Another area that requires review is the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which provides the compensation fund of last resort for customers of authorised financial services firms and rightly protects consumers of companies that have ceased trading. Currently, insurance brokers are included in the same funding pot as credit intermediaries that mis-sold payment protection insurance cover, several of which have failed, resulting in claims on the FSCS. That has led to an increase in the levy that insurance brokers face. Indeed, insurance brokers contribute 72% of that particular funding pot, but have made only 2% of the claims made upon it—a gross distortion that the industry feels is both unfair and difficult to budget for owing to its volatile and unpredictable nature. I appreciate that the FCA is currently reviewing the funding structure of the FSCS, but ask the Minister to look into how that can be fair, equitable and manageable to the broking sector.
It would be prudent to note at this point that insurance brokers do not pose the same risks as banks or insurers, owing to the fact they do not hold client money and generally have risk-transfer agreements in place. With better understanding and a working relationship with the profession, especially with small firms, I believe the FCA would conclude that the insurance broking sector is low risk and would be compelled to regulate it as such, leaving its own resources free to pursue those financial services that pose the greatest threats to consumers and the UK economy.
To conclude, the insurance industry as a whole is a vital part of our economy, which is rightly proud of its long-standing tradition of being the best in the world, but the current regulatory system is potentially putting that in jeopardy. I do not believe it to be a coincidence that the number of brokers registered with the FCA fell by 32% between 2006 and 2014. The knock-on effect of that is the great danger of limiting the choice of our consumers—the very consumers whom the Financial Services Authority set out to protect—at a time when access to good, independent financial advice is needed more than ever.
As I have said, the insurance industry is not afraid of fair and proportionate regulation, and I appreciate that the FCA has moved a long way from its predecessor, but there is so much more that it can do to achieve its purpose while still promoting a thriving insurance industry. It can do that by concentrating its resources effectively on protecting the consumer and enhancing the reputation of the industry both at home and overseas, while also securing the long-term crucial and positive impact of the broking sector on the United Kingdom economy.
Connaught Income Fund
Graham Stuart Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on championing this issue. I have been contacted by constituents. They want to know why the FCA is taking so long conducting its inquiry and when they are going to get information about what is going on within it. They want to be confident that the inquiry is being properly conducted and to see a resolution of this unpleasant and long-running saga.
Guto Bebb
My hon. Friend has summarised my speech in a pithy intervention.
It is important to highlight that when the transfer of operator happened, the subsequent information memorandum issued by Blue Gate was virtually identical to the original information memorandum issued by Capita, and for a further 10 months, more or less, investors’ funds going into Connaught were still managed by Capita IRG Trustees Ltd, which handled investors’ money while Blue Gate waited to receive authority from the FSA to handle client funds.
The whole issue becomes even more concerning because in January 2011 a whistleblower—none other than the chief executive of Tiuta, George Patellis—contacted the FSA to make a principle 11 notification in relation to the misuse of fund moneys by Tiuta. In March 2011 George Patellis met Ian Conway from the FSA to highlight evidence of mismanagement and the fraudulent use of investor funds. He provided ample evidence to support his claims.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Graham Stuart Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams
I am not going to give way anymore, as I am conscious of the time.
These cuts are punitive and wrong. They fly in the face of the Conservative party’s pledge to protect disabled people’s benefits. With this cut to ESA WRAG support, without putting in place anything to replace it, the Government are condemning more disabled people and their families to live in poverty. I predict that more tragedies will happen. I will be pushing our proposals to a vote and urge all Members to do the right thing by supporting the removal of clauses 13 and 14 from the Bill.
New clause 4 requires that the Government undertake a full independent review of their sanctions regime by 31 March 2016. It is with considerable regret that, after the Work and Pensions Committee’s report earlier this year, which also recommended an independent review of benefit conditionality and sanctions, the Government have failed to recognise the real concerns about their new sanctions regime, either in response to what was said in the Bill Committee or to that report.
I have been campaigning for an independent review of sanctions for nearly two years, and in that time constituents have come to me with their stories about how they have been sanctioned. One constituent was told while he was undergoing the work capability assessment that he was having a heart attack and should go to hospital, yet two weeks later he received a letter to say that he had been sanctioned. People up and down the country have also got in touch with their stories of how they have been sanctioned, for example, for being a few minutes late for an appointment with an adviser or work coach. Increasingly, people are being sanctioned unreasonably, for example, because they had attended their mother’s funeral, been hospitalised or gone to a job interview—this is absurd.
There was another category of reasons for being sanctioned. I still have the email from a constituent who had received a letter saying he had been sanctioned for non-attendance at a meeting with his adviser at the jobcentre, even though he had evidence that he had been there. The penny dropped when another constituent, who had worked in jobcentres across Greater Manchester for 20 years, came to me to tell me that as part of the new sanctions regime introduced at the end of 2012, the DWP had targets for sanctions. As he described it, claimants were being deliberately set up to fail, whether they had done anything wrong or not.
The Work and Pensions Committee also became concerned while conducting an inquiry in 2013 on “The role of Jobcentre Plus in the reformed welfare system”. At that stage, it recommended the following:
“DWP should launch a second, broader, independent review of conditionality and sanctions, to include investigation of whether the process is being applied appropriately, fairly, proportionately and in accordance with the rules, across the Jobcentre network.”
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I am concerned about the issue the hon. Lady raised about targets for sanctions, as this is a serious allegation to make and it is a serious issue. It is possible to meet people from all sorts of walks of life who through their profession may have some professional insight, but their word alone is not enough to suggest that something is true—one does need verification from elsewhere. Can she substantiate her point? What did she find out that would make us believe it is true?
Debbie Abrahams
The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me: that is why we need the independent review. There was enough evidence to leave real concerns about this matter. The Select Committee thought that the Minister had agreed to a review, but as paragraph 100 of the report states, unfortunately he reneged on that promise. In addition to these serious ethical issues, there were, and still are, concerns about a number of people affected, particularly in the case of ESA claimants, and about the meteoric rise in the use of sanctions.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Select Committee reported on the fact that there are targets for off-flow, which means getting people off the books. Those in themselves are targets. [Interruption.]
Debbie Abrahams
Well, I will move on to that shortly and show exactly why we believe that is happening.
In addition to those serious ethical issues, we have also seen a meteoric rise in the use of sanctions. ESA sanctions increased from 60,363 between June 2010 and October 2012 to 245,679 between November 2012 and March 2015, which corresponds with the introduction of the new sanctions regime. As I have said, people on ESA are disabled or have serious health conditions.
The new sanctions regime is also particularly punitive. People are without financial support not just for a week or two, because the minimum sanction is now four weeks. Subsequent misdemeanours can mean up to three years of sanctions, whereas previously the maximum was six months. That has particularly affected young people, disabled people and lone parents. In addition, during 2013-14 it became clear that although no other benefits, such as housing benefit, were meant to be affected, in some cases housing benefit was automatically being stopped. The obvious implication is that families will be getting into debt as a result.
The fact that since January 2014, on average, nearly half of ESA sanctions have been overturned on appeal surely confirms that there are issues with sanctions policy and practice. The Work and Pensions Committee published its report in March this year, revealing even greater concerns about the inappropriate use of sanctions, their ineffectiveness in getting people into work and the impact on the health and wellbeing of claimants.
The Select Committee received evidence that sanctions were being driven by targets to get claimants off-flow in a way that distorted the JSA claimant count. A team from Oxford analysed data from 376 local authority areas and found that 43% of JSA sanctioned claimants left JSA and that 80% did so for reasons other than employment. In July, the Social Security Advisory Committee also raised concerns about the effectiveness of the sanctions regime in getting people into good quality jobs, and called for better evidence to underpin sanctions policy.
Debbie Abrahams
Absolutely.
Similarly, there are concerns about the impact of the benefit cap on disabled people, who already face extra costs associated with their disability, as I mentioned earlier. It is estimated that 150,000 adults and 395,000 children will be affected by the reduction in the cap. We believe that, in conjunction with the freeze in local housing allowance, cuts in social housing rents and a lack of affordable homes, the lower cap also risks exacerbating the housing crisis. The Government’s own impact assessment concedes that rent arrears, evictions and homelessness will increase as a result of the lower cap. We believe that further reductions in the benefit cap in London and elsewhere risk pushing tens of thousands of children, families and disabled people into poverty. We are the sixth wealthiest country in the world. It is not right that the Government are seeking to secure the recovery on the backs of the working poor, their children and disabled people. I hope they will think again.
Graham Stuart
I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on her new position.
I want to speak narrowly to new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). The new clause would amend the regulations that currently mean that a claimant who is moved from the old disability living allowance system to the new personal independence payment award must wait 28 days after a decision before receiving the new benefit. Those regulations allow a claimant who is moving to a lower award to adjust to their new financial circumstances by receiving the old award for a period of time, which is extremely welcome.
The unintended consequence of the regulations, however, has been that some of the most disabled and vulnerable people in our society, including those who are terminally ill, are being forced to wait almost a month, and sometimes longer, to receive the extra money they need to meet the costs resulting from their illness. That situation most commonly affects individuals who have become entitled to additional money through PIP because their diagnosis has become terminal.
I am grateful to Macmillan Cancer Care for the work that it has done in this area. Let us imagine a cancer patient, who is already receiving some support under the old DLA system because of their illness, and who receives a terminal diagnosis. They inform the Department for Work and Pensions about this, and the Department makes a decision about their eligibility for additional financial support as a result of their terminal diagnosis. I am pleased to say that that decision should be made within six days—a target timescale that was introduced precisely in recognition of the fact that those who are terminally ill are in particular need of timely assistance.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I, too, have seen the Minister to push this point, to ensure that the vulnerable—particularly the terminally ill—do not fall through the cracks as they transition from the DLA to PIP. I thank the Minister for listening, and I look forward to receiving confirmation of how we are going to ensure speedy payments and minimum waits for that group, as I have been assured will happen, so that those people can get their funds in advance. All these things help, and it is not right that they should have to wait. I am grateful for being listened to.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, in which she has succinctly made my entire speech for me. She sets an example to all of us in how to convey an argument as briefly as possible.
If a decision is made within six days—which is a good thing—why must an individual then wait 28 days to receive the additional financial support that it has already been decided they should get? That financial support could help them meet the costs of the sudden onset of daily living needs or mobility needs that can accompany a terminal diagnosis. There are examples of people missing out on, in some cases, hundreds of pounds. People miss out not only on the additional money through PIP, but on other financial support such as free car tax, premiums in means-tested benefits and other passported benefits, because eligibility for those benefits kicks in only when the additional PIP starts to be paid. It cannot be right that an individual who has a life expectancy of less than six months is being forced to wait a minimum of 28 days—perhaps one sixth of their life expectancy—for vital financial support on which they depend.
At the heart of this Government’s welfare reform programme is a commitment to protecting the most vulnerable people in our society. The context of today’s debate, given the tough financial decisions that are having to be made, is one of a transformation in the work opportunities, employment chances and life chances of so many people across our society, so that they can try to escape the labyrinthine mess that was left behind by the former Labour Prime Minister and Chancellor. That is what we are trying to do—create a society in which everyone, including the disabled, can be looked after properly. That is why I believe it is entirely in the spirit of these reforms to amend the current regulations so that anyone who transfers from DLA to PIP due to a terminal diagnosis is paid the additional support promptly and does not have to wait 28 days. It is not a large group, but it is a group of some of the most disabled and vulnerable individuals in our society.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend wants to give whatever remains of the argument in my speech, and I give way to her again.
Jo Churchill
I thank my hon. Friend. During the conversations to which I referred, I received confirmation that no one would lose those four weeks’ money, and that following the decision to award PIP new claimants would have their claim backdated, so I look forward to confirmation of such positive news.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend really does keep stealing my punches, because I too have met the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People, and he was most sympathetic in listening to these arguments. There are technical issues that are going to be dealt with, but I will return to that.
The positive impact of such a change on the individuals who are currently affected by the rule would be immense. It would that ensure people could afford the support they need in the final few months of their lives. In Committee, the Government suggested that changing the regulation could mean that a case manager would not have sufficient time to consider the case. I do not follow that argument, because the 28-day rule applies once a decision has already been made, so it should not have an impact on the time taken to decide on a case.
Having spoken to the Minister, I know that he is listening to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), myself and others across the House, and I hope we will get a positive response so that terminally ill people who are to see an increase in their financial support can receive it as soon as possible.
Richard Graham
Surely the point my hon. Friend raises and the Government’s response on some of these issues—which are sensitive, as other hon. Members have rightly said—indicate that the Government do care about this category of our constituents and are reacting and making changes that will help them, and totally give the lie to some of the irresponsible comments from the Opposition Front Benchers.
Graham Stuart
I would hesitate to give advice to any Member as to how they should conduct themselves, but this is an emotive area and these decisions affect vulnerable people. A balance has to be struck between fiscal responsibility, looking after the most vulnerable and changing the incentives so that we get people aligned with the best opportunity in the long term as well as the short term. These are sensitive issues, and I agree with my hon. Friend about the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth referring to the Government demonising the disabled and the poor in a way that she did not substantiate at all. One mention in an autumn statement two or three years ago of the fact that some people abused the system is not an effort to demonise the poor and disabled, and suggesting that undermines the other arguments—and there are strong arguments to be made in this area and questions that need to be asked about the Government’s programme.
The decisions being made are not easy, and they will not all be right, but trying to smear the whole Government Front-Bench team loses people rather than wins them over. I do not think the hon. Lady needs to do that in order to make a powerful case and have a strong hearing outside this place; if what she says looks like partisan point scoring and personal vilification, it will undermine the arguments she is trying to pursue and champion.
I am delighted that the Minister is listening. I hope and expect—as I know all my hon. Friends and Opposition Members do—that we will find a solution to this technical challenge and make sure it is delivered as quickly as possible, so that the terminally ill get the money they are due as quickly as possible.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford
I shall speak to the amendments in this group in my name and the names of my party colleagues, namely new clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12, amendments 35 to 48, 56, 20 and 57 to 65, and new clause 7, on which I will open my remarks.
New clause 7, along with amendments 35 to 48, is intended to amend the parts of the Bill relating to the benefit cap. Amendments 35, 36 and 37 would maintain the cap at its current rate, while amendments 38 to 48 would mitigate the differential impact of the Government’s proposals on specific groups of claimants by exempting from the benefit cap bereavement allowance, carer’s allowance, child benefit, child tax credit, guardian’s allowance, maternity allowance, severe disablement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance.
The bottom line, and the key point to be made today, is that many of the provisions in this part of the Bill are entirely arbitrary and have no robust evidence to support them. By proposing an arbitrary benefits cap, the Government fail to acknowledge the underlying drivers of benefits increases. They fail to acknowledge, for example, how soaring private sector rents in parts of the UK with astronomical house prices and chronic under-supply of affordable housing push up the cost of housing benefit—money that usually goes straight into the pockets of private landlords, often without even passing through the hands of tenants. But I recognise that that is not the only driver, and in the absence of proper analysis, setting the benefits cap at an arbitrary level is possibly the worst example of policy making on the back of a fag packet that I have seen in this place for quite some time. Although I support the Labour amendment that would force the Secretary of State to review the impact of the lower cap more regularly, I would prefer to see this very weak piece of policy making removed completely from the Bill.
Helen Whately
It was pointed out in Committee that people who receive benefits also pay tax. I do not think we should try to parcel people up in different tribes or groups. This is about getting the right thing for the country, trying to help everybody make the most of their opportunities and making work pay.
I have certainly had difficult conversations on the doorsteps in my constituency, because the majority of employees in Faversham and Mid Kent are paid less than £20,000 per annum. At its current level the benefits cap has been working. More than 16,000 capped households have moved into work, and households subject to the cap are 41% more likely to get into work. We know that work is the best way out of poverty and I believe that everyone in this House wants to see people move out of poverty. We should make the benefits cap work harder. That is what this is about.
Graham Stuart
It is shocking that Opposition Members find themselves unable to talk about the jobs miracle of the past five years. We have created more jobs in this country than the rest of Europe combined. That is the dignity that people want. What we did not need was people who were on 16 hours a week and disincentivised from taking on any extra work because they would lose out if they did so. That is the mess that Labour left behind and we are disentangling it so that we can create a fairer society for everybody.
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend for making his point so forcefully.
I will move on to the proposed amendments to clause 13. The Bill Committee heard evidence of the damage that a long period or a life on welfare can do to people. Our witnesses talked about people who had been out of work for a long time having their confidence destroyed, and about how they begin to feel that they are not capable of changing their lives. We were also told that 61% of people in the work-related activity group want to work, yet only 1% come off that benefit each month. I am sure that many of us know of people who find it difficult to get into work for all sorts of reasons, such as mental health problems, and need extra help to do so. The current system is not working well enough. Not only does clause 13 remove financial disincentives, but, critically, and hand in hand with that, the Government have committed new funding to help that group of people into work, which is a response to what they really want.