Greener Road Transport Fuels

Debate between Ian Swales and John Pugh

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have told many potential investors in the industry that we cannot expect the Government to make winners. As at a roulette table, they will put their chips on lots of different numbers, but having made policy on, for example, the proportion of petrol that should come from bio-sources, they cannot change it when people are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds. By the way, those biofuels do not get a subsidy; all they need is a market that is understood and left to prosper. I agree with his point, but at some stage we must not so much pick winners, as set the environment for particular sectors of the market to thrive.

[John Pugh]

One place the Government cannot avoid interacting with the market in one way or another is the taxation regime, and they do so to an enormous extent. A lot of the price of petrol is tax. They cannot opt out.

[Ian Swales]

That is a good point. The Government have a key role, because they are never out of the market, due to the environment they set and the rules they put in place. They are players, whether they like it or not.

We need to look constantly at the science behind the issues and not simply listen to the last non-governmental organisation we spoke to. Sustainability needs to be looked at from cradle to grave, and there is a lot of devil in that detail, such as the materials used to make a car battery for an electric car. We need to police systems, because once we put rules in place, there are usually lots of people working on the best way to get round them and maximise their take. We need to ensure that we are not naive about the systems we put in place. We need big thinking.

One of my concerns is that we need five Ministers to respond to the debate: one from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; one from the Department of Energy and Climate Change; one from the Treasury; one from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and one from the Department for Transport, who I am sure—no pressure—will speak for all the others. The issues typically cross those five Departments, a fact that I know the Government recognise. They have put a high-level team in place, but we need not just high-level thinking, but high-level action to ensure we get a consistent view, over, for example, the value of waste and where it is best used.

Finally, I congratulate the Minister on his new role. I am sure that, having listened to the debate, he is wondering whether he did the right thing in accepting the job. I hope he will give us the clarity we all seek.

Corporate Tax Avoidance

Debate between Ian Swales and John Pugh

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invention. As fellow members of the Public Accounts Committee, he and I have looked in detail at that case. He is right that such arrangements should not be made.

The UK should take a look at its own role and its relationship with tax havens such as the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and so on, which the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has described as sunny places for shady people. UK citizens deserve a full explanation from the Government of why they support those places as tax havens and what net benefit they bring to the UK.

It is also urgent that work takes place at EU level to ensure that companies cannot exploit sweetheart tax deals in countries such as the Netherlands and Luxembourg, aided by the free movement of goods, people and capital. It is time properly to enforce the 1997 EU code of conduct on business taxation. I am especially pleased to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as that code was ratified under your chairmanship. It specifically highlights issues such as doing deals to give lower rates and tax incentives for activities that are isolated from the domestic economy of a given country. The OECD set up a forum on harmful tax practices at about the same time. Both initiatives highlighted the need for transparency. A race to the bottom helps nobody.

Next, the Government should consider disallowing some foreign interest payments for tax purposes. It is depressingly easy to move a chunk of capital to a low tax regime, then export all one’s profits via interest payments. Foreign interest should have to be specifically justified. When the loans were taken out, what was the purpose? Were they proportional to business need and are they now? Who is the lender? A related company deal needs particular scrutiny, especially as the capital may originally have been exported from the UK with no equivalent taxable interest coming back.

The Government should look at setting maximum royalty and management fees, and disallowing them as a deduction if they are disproportionate to profits. There should be an ability-to-pay test; such payments should not be allowed to wipe out UK profits, as we saw with Starbucks. The Government should work with international partners to disallow management fees and royalty, patent and copyright fees unless they go direct to the country where the relevant value was generated. Payments to tax havens could be automatically disallowed. When a company claims that rights have been sold to other countries, it needs to show that a full and fair price was paid. Of course, that would crystallise a big tax liability in the selling country. The United States would be especially enthusiastic about such a move, as it is one of the big losers from payments going to tax havens.

Because our tax systems are national, all movements of value across borders, including business transfers, need a price attached to them for tax purposes. The Government must also find a way to ensure that VAT is charged on all qualifying sales in the UK, whatever the country of origin. To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), we need much more specialist resource in HMRC. A department that brings in 100 times what it costs should not be treated like a normal cost centre; there must be many more invest-to-collect business cases to be made. Maximising our tax revenue is as much about enforcing the rules as about the rules themselves. In particular, a special unit is needed to look at everyone running an internet-based business selling to UK customers, starting with the biggest. It should look at where they are based, their business model and whether they abide by UK VAT and corporation tax rules. We need our rules and enforcement to be up to date with technological changes.

The tax system is way too complex; a whole industry has grown up to find creative ways to avoid tax. When will we see significant output and action from the Office of Tax Simplification? Surely we need radical ideas for cutting through the jungle of our tax system, not just the deletion of obscure, rarely used reliefs. Simplification is badly needed, yet we see even more complexity.

I talked earlier about consumer power. The UK Government are by far the biggest purchaser and grant-awarding body in this country. Is it right that Amazon can get more than £10 million of Government money for a new warehouse in Dunfermline when it is a Luxembourg-based retailer paying little corporation tax in this country, and apparently does not pay VAT on all its sales either? Is it right that Accenture, Capgemini and others win Government contracts when they are named as aggressive tax avoiders? Should HMRC itself have sold its buildings for leaseback to Mapeley, a Bermuda-based company? Is it not time that we recognised in financial assessments that most of the profits from private finance initiative and outsourcing contracts are now disappearing offshore?

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is giving a list of remedies for tax avoidance schemes. Would not most of them have been caught by a general anti-avoidance rule?

[Ian Swales]

I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. I am not familiar enough with how such a rule would be structured, but the idea would certainly be helpful.

Information Technology (NHS)

Debate between Ian Swales and John Pugh

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing the debate. In this field, he is very expert, persistent and learned, and I believe that he is writing a book on the subject—I shall give him a plug because he is too modest to do it himself. We have both followed the debate for a fairly long time. We have had Commons debates and there have been PAC sessions on the subject. We have attended meetings with Mr Granger and been to numerous conferences. We have even sat in Richmond house and watched the Lorenzo system work—it proved to be a little more difficult to get it to work in a hospital in real time, but none the less it looked good when we saw it.

I do not want to sketch out the sorry history, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk has done so most lucidly. Everybody in the Chamber realises that it was a procurement disaster, and a project management disaster. It did all the things that are not supposed to be done, such as failing to shift risk to the private sector, failing to be clear about the actual benefits, failing to involve practitioners and stakeholders, and failing to control costs. It was a bright idea, but it was not realistically assessed and ultimately had to be scaled back.

Much of it, as the hon. Gentleman said, might have happened anyway. The good side of it, if I can so describe it—the PACS, e-prescriptions, improved broadband access, telemedicine and so on—might well have happened, and we ought to recognise the fact. However, the project would not have done well in front of Alan Sugar on “The Apprentice”, let alone the Public Accounts Committee. That is history, however, and to some extent we must now consider the present.

We are in unprecedented times of cash restraint, and we have to find £20 billion within the health service over the next few years. I doubt whether we will succeed, but we cannot abandon that target. Twenty or so hospitals will not achieve foundation trust status, and we cannot magic away their PFI debts or ignore the consequences that flow from dodging difficult reconfiguration issues. However, as we roll out Connecting for Health, the cost certainly matters. I believe that some of the costs, particularly those of the patient administration systems, are still being picked up by the ailing hospitals.

It is not easy to see how current health reforms will ease matters, as they will increase the diversity of providers and complicate somewhat the recording of data, as providers do it in different ways. That will add to the potential problems of data sharing and interoperability. Ultimately, we will require some merging of social care and medical records, and the changed landscape will necessitate appreciable changes in the choose and book system. I do not know whether we will be transferring or binning the existing IT programmes of PCTs, but it could be said that what we originally designed is now inappropriate—that NPfIT, an awful pun, no longer fits.

I believe that the Government have done all the sensible things in response to a difficult situation. They have allowed NHS trusts to adapt and develop existing systems. They have emphasised open standards and interoperability, and continue to do so, in order that we can have variety without undue chaos and do not end up being captive to a major supplier. That is the ultimate nightmare, and it was a big fear throughout the process. Indeed, although Granger tried to prevent it, it seems that he could not. The Government have sought to reduce and shave costs through negotiation or by cutting back on specifications. However, there appear to be a few problems with what is otherwise a sensible strategy.

First, I understand that, in these difficult circumstances, some of the key managers of the programme are to be the chief executives of strategic health authorities, but when they have gone I have no idea who will persist with the task and take up the burden. Secondly, savings within the NHS will lead to many of the much-maligned back-office staff going, and I presume that that will include NHS client-side IT people. The loss of client-side expertise will be a big worry, as it will make us even more dependent on the expensive consultants who got us into this mess. I note that McKinsey was pivotal in advising us to go ahead. I note also that, to this day, McKinsey has its feet well under the table in Richmond house, and is advising the Government on a number of problems.

The big problem, however, appears to be that we do not seem able easily to extricate ourselves or to revise contracts. Everyone agrees that that is necessary at the moment. Rather, I should say that we seem unable to do so without making matters worse. We seem doomed to spend another £4.3 billion, yet we need to save a further £20 billion. The fatal breakfast that Mr Blair had with the IT industry in February 2002 has come back to haunt us. Mr Blair might have been worried about his legacy, but it is now a worry for us.

I understand through the grapevine that this was a matter of heated debate at the last meeting of the PAC, which was a rather rumbustious affair. I saw Mr Nicholson shortly after that meeting, and I have to say that his account of events differed slightly from that of some hon. Members, in terms of how satisfactory an occasion he thought it was and how far they had got in their Socratic examination of the flaws. However, it seems that he and we are trapped between a rock and a hard place, and that there is not an easy way out.

The dilemma is not only ours; it is one also for the IT industry. The industry can help us to meet the Nicholson challenge, or it can compound it. It can work ever more closely in areas such as telemedicine and so on, and on how to produce genuine cost savings, including on the implementation of IT; or it can simply go on as before, selling us more kit that we do not need and software that we cannot use. If that is the industry’s choice—it is the industry’s choice as much as ours; we have to throw down the challenge to suppliers—it will face years of adversarial attrition as we try to cut costs, presumably followed by bad feeling and empty order books, and endless fulmination from the hon. Member for South Norfolk, who becomes increasingly frustrated as the drama continues. However, the industry could accept that it is a collective problem.

It is a very big collective problem, because at some point in time it will throw into stark relief what we do with the summary care record, which has less utility than we ever imagined and more complexity than we ever realised.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

As a member of the PAC who was present at the rumbustious meeting to which my hon. Friend referred, I gained the impression that the suppliers were completely unprepared to consider the correct option of considering things differently and trying to be positive. It seemed that they were prepared to protect their positions to the hilt, which is partly why it was a rumbustious sitting. Does my hon. Friend have any advice on how to change the attitude of the suppliers?

[John Pugh]

Given that, uniquely in the UK, many suppliers are dependent on Government contracts in the long term, they have a stark choice between pleasing their shareholders and pleasing their long-term customers. They must recognise that. However, I am not sure how to achieve that while doing anything useful with the summary care record. I suspect that that may be a matter for another debate—and possibly a longer one.