Oral Answers to Questions

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

If only we could do that; we do not have the ability to do so. What I can say is that in March 2017 we published the draft money laundering regulations and announced plans for a new watchdog to ensure supervisors and law enforcement work together more effectively. Since 2010, law enforcement have seized £1.4 billion in illegal funds.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

The EU is to blame for many things, but it is not to blame for money laundering and, in fact, any solution that looks to the EU to solve money laundering is missing the point that it is an international problem. Therefore, will the Minister confirm that he will be engaging internationally and not through the parochial lens of the EU?

[Simon Kirby]

We are of course a founding member of the Financial Action Task Force, which sets international standards for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. After exiting the EU, the UK will continue to lead in FATF and around the world.

London Stock Exchange

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sir William Cash]

There is severe detriment to our national interest in allowing a merger of that kind when the London Stock Exchange and its group are the jewel in the crown of the City of London. Any merger raises matters of national interest such as, first, financial stability and UK taxpayer liability. The merger would create a new financial market infrastructure group controlling, inter alia, about 90% of European-listed and over-the-counter derivatives transactions, but operated for the benefit of shareholders, not users, with an unprecedented complexity of risk profile and significant uncertainty as to whether the UK taxpayer would pick up the bill were part of the combined infrastructure to fail. The uncertainty created by the lack right now of a clear Brexit deal adds considerably to the stability and taxpayer risks.

Secondly, there is loss of control of a key UK asset post-Brexit. The London Stock Exchange is a major centre of global financial markets: more than 500 foreign companies are listed in London, which is 20% of global foreign listings; and it has the highest equity market capitalisation, 170%, in relation to the GDP of all the largest economies. Majority control of that vital business will pass to Deutsche Börse shareholders, who will own 54% of the new group post-merger. Passing control of the London Stock Exchange to Deutsche Börse in the context of Brexit is not in the national interest and might undermine our negotiations with the 27 member states as we leave the EU.

The issue is not where the headquarters of the new company is located technically. I am told that formally moving the HQ to Germany, as the state of Hesse has insisted, is not likely given the need for a significant shareholder vote, but that is beside the point. The real issue is who calls the shots and in whose interests critical decisions are made. It is no answer to say that the HQ will remain in the UK if the reality is that the people really in charge are flying in for the day from Germany. Decisions must be taken in the UK and in the interests of the UK.

My third point is about competition concerns. The only substantial remedy offered by the parties to the EU Commission to allay concerns about significantly impeding effective competition is the sale of the central counterparty, Clearnet SA, based in Paris, and part of the LSEG. No disposals have been offered by Deutsche Börse, which owns trading platforms, central counterparties and settlement systems that have been integrated into a single vertical silo in Frankfurt. That is not sufficient, and I am concerned that the outcome of the European Commission’s review of the proposed merger will be determined by the EU’s political priority to ensure that Germany has control over London’s capital market infrastructure, instead of by genuine market concentration and anti-trust concerns.

Fourthly, there has been a lack of public scrutiny and industry comment; there has been little proactive support for, or indeed criticism of, the merger from the main UK financial institutions. That is not surprising, since the parties have given 12 major investment banks a role in the deal and they are destined to share about £353 million in fees if the deal succeeds. There has also been little comment by the UK Government so far on a deal concerning a major UK asset, although they still have a public interest role to play under the Enterprise Act 2002. We need to know why it was, and who decided not to refer the merger when it first came before the Secretary of State. Vast profits and sums of money are involved, and some stand to gain financially on a grand scale. All of that can be ascertained, but the national interest must prevail.

Precious little has been put into the public domain to suggest that the deal is remotely in the public interest. On what possible basis can it be argued, in particular post-23 June and the passage through the House of Commons of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, that the merger is in the national interest? Furthermore, under section 1JA of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Treasury

“may at any time by notice in writing to the FCA make recommendations to the FCA about aspects of the economic policy of…Government”,

including how to ensure compatibility with the FCA’s “strategic objective”, to ensure that the London Stock Exchange functions well, and how to advance the FCA’s objective to ensure the soundness, stability and resilience of the UK’s financial system, which is defined as including the London Stock Exchange and the London Clearing House.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend thought about what would happen, were the merger to go ahead, if the eurozone collapsed, given some of its fundamental difficulties? Having extricated ourselves from involvement in the euro and, on Brexit, from the European Union, would the merger not lock in some of the potential downsides to the UK equity and capital markets without gaining us any of the upsides?

[Sir William Cash]

As I have said, the withdrawal Bill is quite clear. We will leave. That means that we will be insulated from the catastrophe that could occur if the eurozone collapsed. I could enlarge that point, but I will not for the time being.

There is another statutory requirement to ensure the principle of the desirability of sustainable growth in the UK’s economy in the medium or long term. Those are all statutory functions, and I strongly suggest that Her Majesty’s Treasury should decide—in fact, I urge it to—that it is not in the UK’s interests to allow a deal where there is a clear intention to take action that would cause systemic risks in the UK and be detrimental to UK tax revenues.

I move to the powers of the Bank of England, which is under a judicially reviewable statutory duty in respect of the test of approval for any acquisition of the London Clearing House. Under the European market infrastructure regulation, the test for approval in general terms for the purpose of ensuring the sound and prudent management of the London Clearing House raises questions of the suitability of the proposed acquirer and the soundness of the proposed acquisition, including the person who will direct the business of the London Clearing House. It also includes questions relating to whether the Bank of England would be able effectively to supervise, and several other factors. All those are in question in this instance.

I turn to the powers of the Financial Conduct Authority, which is required to approve the acquisition of the London Stock Exchange because it involves the acquisition of the “control” over the LSE by the new holding company. In those circumstances, the FCA has to consider the suitability of the new group holding company and the financial soundness of the acquisition to ensure sound and prudent management, and have regard to the key influence that the new group holding company will have on the London Stock Exchange. There are grave concerns about all those matters that pose a threat to the sound and prudent management of the London Stock Exchange, including questions relating to moving euro clearing out of London. The removal of euro clearing to Germany would undermine UK economic growth, because it may lead to the movement of other currency clearing out of the UK and undermine the City’s success. Moving the new holding company to Frankfurt would also be against the UK national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for bringing this debate before us. However, the context and tone in which it has been undertaken is a bit unfortunate. To me, it seems that this is not a political issue, but it is being made to feel like one.

To give some context, there have increasingly been mergers in stock exchanges. There were 18 stock exchanges internationally in 1999, but that had decreased to five by 2012—those numbers were given in a Library briefing paper.

[James Duddridge]

There are more stock exchanges than that in Africa, so that is wrong.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Those are the numbers that were given in a Library briefing paper, so I assumed they were correct.

There has been a move towards stock exchange mergers in recent years. Therefore, the merger is in the context of the London Stock Exchange Group looking to compete with bigger stock exchanges and needing to be a bigger stock exchange in order to do that.

I want to make it clear that the merger is not an anti-Britain move. As has been said, it was conceived a long time before the Brexit vote happened. It is not about trying to write Britain out, and the deal was not set up to try to move things to Frankfurt. In fact, as the hon. Member for Stone stated, the headquarters of the new organisation will be in London and—I do not think he mentioned this—the board will be 50:50 from the LSE and Deutsche Börse. There is therefore a lot of protection built in.

The London Stock Exchange Group has a good story to tell, and I want to talk about that briefly and about protections. The group has done a huge amount to support high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises through its ELITE and AIM programmes, both of which have been immensely successful. In fact, the group will come to Aberdeen next month to speak to companies about accessing finance.

I have asked the UK Government on a number of occasions for assistance for oil and gas companies in accessing finance and have felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall and not getting much of a response. However, the LSE Group has offered to come and talk to companies about ways in which they can access finance, which is hugely important. Those companies are not big enough to be involved in the stock exchange but the group is looking to grow them. It has also been successful in the horizontal model it uses for clearing. Again, protections are written in that will ensure that such things continue.

I have talked about the 50:50 board and the HQ in the UK. No one seriously thinks that Frankfurt will become the centre for European banking. That is just not the case. Anyone who has heard about the situation on the ground in Frankfurt knows that it does not have the infrastructure to support that. It is not going to happen. Companies will not move wholescale to Frankfurt. If I was a Frankfurt politician, I would want people to come and I would be making positive statements about that happening, but it is not going to happen. London will continue to be a big financial centre, and the link between the London Stock Exchange Group and Deutsche Börse will serve to bolster that rather than to weaken it.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

The Government completely agree that the process for claiming gift aid on SMS and online donations made through digital intermediaries should be simpler. We have discussed this issue in detail with the sector and have published several consultation documents. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) made reference to one such document in Committee, and it has been referred to again today. I am pleased to tell him, the shadow Minister and other hon. Members that we have made progress on this issue. Primary legislation was included in the Finance Act 2015 and the Finance Act 2016, and draft regulations were published for technical consultation earlier this year. The Government intend to lay those regulations shortly, and they will simplify the process of gift aiding donations through digital intermediaries. Instead of completing a gift aid declaration for every donation made, donors will be able to sign a one-off authorisation allowing the intermediary to create gift aid declarations and claim gift aid on the donor’s behalf for all subsequent donations made in that tax year.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I was about to rise to congratulate the Minister, as this seems like a really good initiative, but why apply this for only just that tax year? Given that someone is able to donate to an organisation and do it within a tax year, why not roll this over into future tax years to extend this provision? Perhaps I am being uncharitable to her, as this is a good provision, but it could be even better.

[Jane Ellison]

I strongly suspect that there are technical reasons why that would be difficult, but I am happy to take my hon. Friend’s suggestion away, look at it and respond properly to him. In the spirit of simplification, he seeks to make it ever easier to make these donations. As a result of the way Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs operates—within tax years—I could foresee difficulties with this approach, but I will look at it and write to him with a bit more detail.

There are more things we can do to make things easier for charities, and the Government are constantly looking at ways of achieving that—we have just heard another suggestion from my hon. Friend. I am pleased to tell the House that we have a very good track record of simplifying gift aid processes for charities. For example, in 2013 we introduced Charities Online to help charities to claim gift aid even faster, and 95% of charities now use this service. Instead of having to fill in paper forms and post them back to HMRC, charities can claim their repayments online and have them paid directly into their bank account. Under the old paper system it could take up to three working weeks for charities to receive their repayments, whereas most claims are now paid within five working days. I am sure hon. Members would agree that that is a welcome boost for charities. Just last year, HMRC introduced a new, shorter model gift aid declaration to make it easier for donors to understand their obligations under the scheme, and it worked in close collaboration with the Charity Retail Association to simplify and clarify the Government’s guidance on the retail gift aid scheme. Earlier this summer, the Treasury published a consultation exploring ways of simplifying the gift aid donor benefits rules, and we looked carefully at the responses received before publishing a response.

Of course, we will keep looking for ways to simplify and improve gift aid, but these are questions about the wider gift aid scheme, not the gift aid small donations scheme. My hon. Friend might be pleased to note that one reason I foresaw difficulties with his proposal is that people’s tax status can change from year to year—for example, when they move from work into retirement—and this would make things difficult. I hope that that response is helpful, but I will follow up with him in more detail.

Amendment 2 would grant the Treasury the power to amend the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 in the future in the event that new donation technology develops. Members who were present at the original Bill discussion reminded us in Committee that they had made points about future-proofing the scheme in terms of technology at that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) are nodding. It is an interesting point, which we have debated.

The Government have consulted fully on the changes to the scheme, and as part of the consultation that we have just undertaken, the extensive nature of which I outlined earlier, HMRC officials went out and met charities and other groups to discuss contactless donations and other technological developments. They considered methods of donation that are not currently in use but might be in the pipeline. I understand that there was no suggestion from the stakeholders that there are other imminent technological developments in the pipeline that would be suitable for the small donations scheme. In any event, we have deliberately drafted the definition of “contactless payment” quite widely.

As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in Committee, the definition in the Bill would cover donations from, for example, Oyster cards, as the shadow Minister mentioned, or other smart cards. It would also cover new payment services similar to Apple Pay and Android Pay. We believe that the definition in the Bill is sufficient to cover most of the technological developments that we are likely to see in the reasonably foreseeable future.

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I expressed some degree of sympathy with amendment 2, given that I raised some of these points. I am reassured about the extension of contactless payments, particularly to Oyster cards, as was mentioned from the Opposition Front Bench. However, I do not support the amendment because of its wording. It refers to “comparable method”. The shadow Minister used the word “similar”, and my hon. Friend the Minister used the term “unspecified”. That is all unclear. There will be further technological changes and we will probably look back and say, “Wasn’t there a formulation that we could have used to include this new technology?” The wording of the amendment is not satisfactory and unfortunately I cannot offer a suggestion to improve it.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I spoke on a similar clause four years ago when this Bill first went through Committee; I think that the hon. Member for Clwyd South was here as well. Looking back, many of the Members who served back then appear to have moved on to far greater things than I have, so they will not be repeating this debate.

It is worth looking back at the debate four years ago, when the topic was whether restricting the measures to cash was appropriate and whether we should include different technologies or different means of giving impulse donations for which getting a gift aid declaration is hard, in order to achieve the objectives of the scheme. The current scheme is worthy. It is meant to give a level of support equivalent to gift aid to small donations, in order to give hard-pressed charities extra money. It is regrettable that four years into the scheme, the amounts claimed are much lower than we thought. Ideas to help charities claim and achieve the £100 million that Government thought this would originally cost are to be welcomed.

Four years ago, I was perhaps a bit prescient on this point; I even referred to contactless payments in that debate. I thought that the world might move on, that cash would become less common and that we would all find different ways of donating, whether by making contactless payments on terminals or by clicking buttons in an app. The Bill risked becoming out of date quickly if we were not careful. I suggested at that point that perhaps the Government should take the power in the Bill to amend by statutory instrument the definition of “cash or cash equivalent” in that situation, so we could keep up to speed with technology and not have to keep coming back every few years to primary legislation to fix it.

Here we are four years on, trying to fix contactless payments. That is quite right, and I will happily support it. We have even included Android Pay and Apple Pay, again quite sensibly, but we cannot predict where we will be in four years’ time. How will impulse donations be made? Will it still be by text message, by app, by cash in a bucket or contactless payments, or will we have found some new technology, perhaps fingerprint swipe? It is hard to imagine where we will be in four years’ time. If we are to keep the Bill as effective as we want it to be, why not have that power available so that the Government can say quickly, “Let’s make a tweak here, and allow this to fall within the scheme”?

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making lucid points with which I agree fully, but he recommends that Ministers could make a change through statutory instrument. Would he perhaps consider allowing them to make the change without a statutory instrument, maybe by short consultation or even ministerial decision? That would be liberalisation.

[Nigel Mills]

My hon. Friend is being quite generous as a Back Bencher, offering the Government more power than they want to take. I suppose that there would be spending issues if the Government generously expanded some new and risky technology and that Parliament might want to scrutinise that. I would prefer, in my perfectionist world, some order that undergoes parliamentary scrutiny, but I concede the argument he is putting forward.

The then Minister four years ago, who is now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), was called a “dinosaur” for rejecting the Labour amendments. I am hoping that this Minister will not be called something like that today, given the liberalising approach that she is taking. The then Minister was not keen to accept the amendments, which were meant to apply to cash in order to help people who do bucket collections and so on, where one cannot get a gift aid declaration, as it is an impulse donation and people are not inclined to stop and give those details.

My argument for amendments 2 and 3 is that an SMS message is also an impulse donation. We see adverts on the TV where it says to text a number with “YES” or “FIVE”. If I do that, I do not provide them with any more information. It is a small, impulse donation. The evidence that we have from the various charity groups is that people do not make a gift aid declaration after doing that.

If we cannot tempt the Minister to accept amendments 1, 2 or 3, perhaps she will think on Report whether she can take the power to allow new ways of donating to be included in future, so that she can gradually evolve the scheme and put the extra money into achieving the objectives that we all share. Especially at this time of year, when British Legion volunteers will all be out doing great work shaking their buckets to collect cash, we want the scheme to be as effective as possible. I fear that, by being too restrictive on how donations qualify, we will not give more money to charities, as we all really want to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 3 would ensure that local scout groups, guide groups and Army, Navy and Air Force cadet branches are able to claim individually under the gift aid small donations scheme, rather than being considered as part of a single national charity for the purposes of the scheme.

We have received representations on behalf of those groups arguing that the current treatment under the scheme is unfair. Under the connected charities rules, those organisations are considered to be one charity. However, local organisations fund-raise independently and are independent from one another financially. The Charity Finance Group has suggested that the amount of top-up received by individual scout groups in particular equates to about 17p a year. The new clause would simply allow individual groups to make individual claims through the scheme.

According to the sector, that would improve take-up of the scheme and ensure that small local organisations, which were intended to benefit, are able to do so. I appreciate that there are probably many other organisations with comparable structures that would benefit from similar changes. New clause 3 is more of a probing amendment to try and tease out from the Government why they do not want to reform the scheme in such a way. Perhaps we can return to this issue in more detail on Report. I would welcome any moves by the Minister to review the position and propose an amendment on Report that would catch all similar organisations with comparable structures.

[James Duddridge]

I dropped off my kids at beavers and cubs; and one of them is going to scouts. In this amendment, would the division apply to the 2nd Thorpe Bay unit, or would it apply to each constituent part, whether beavers, scouts, cubs, guides and so on?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and that is why I would welcome a review by the Minister of the proposal in the new clause. We need to catch more than what is simply on paper at the moment; the provision needs to go beyond the scope of local scout groups, for example. There are many other organisations that would benefit from being included individually in the ways I have proposed and I welcome comments on this point by the Minister. I also point Members to a note that they received this morning from the Charity Finance Group, which makes some helpful suggestions on this very point.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I obviously welcome the number of colleagues who have remained in the Chamber after the important debate that has just happened. I am sure that they will contribute to the debate on this important and, I hope, uncontroversial topic, as we set out to give further support to our fantastic charity sector. Although the Bill proposes relatively minor changes, they are really important none the less, because they can further the practical support that we give to our outstanding charities sector in this country, and the childcare payments provisions will help families with childcare. I shall take both aspects in turn and start with the measures to help the UK’s charity sector.

I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that I am enormously proud of the fantastic work done by charitable organisations in this country. Obviously, as the Member for Battersea, I might be forgiven for pausing to make special mention of just one of those charities: the fantastic animal charity, the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home—one of the most famous animal charities in the world, let alone in this country, which finds new homes for more than 8,000 animals every year. Indeed, the Treasury has been a beneficiary of its efforts recently, with the appointment of the new chief mouser, Gladstone the cat, which managed to make me only the second new arrival from Battersea to the Treasury over the summer.

Right across this country and our constituencies, we see charities of all shapes and sizes right at the heart of our communities, whether large charities working here in the UK and across the world, researching cures for diseases or running relief efforts for those who suffer from conflict or crisis—obviously, Haiti is in our minds at the moment, and the House has just debated Syria, where so many charities are doing such brave and important work—or the smaller, more specialised charities run by just a handful of dedicated volunteers. We want to give them all the support that they deserve.

Last year alone, we provided more than £5 billion to help our charities to do more of that brilliant work. Of course, one of the biggest ways that we give them that additional revenue is through gift aid, which was worth about £1.3 billion last year. We want as many charities as possible to benefit from that, but as things stand, it is not always practical or feasible for charities to claim it. If people are out there, collecting money with a bucket, for example, they can hardly ask someone to fill in a gift aid declaration form, alongside giving a handful of small change. That is why, as many colleagues who were here during the last Parliament will remember, we introduced the gift aid small donations scheme in 2013, to allow charities and community amateur sports clubs to claim a gift aid-style top-up payment on donations received in circumstances where it is difficult or burdensome to obtain a gift aid declaration.

It is important to point out that that scheme is not a replacement for gift aid. Where charities can obtain a gift aid declaration, they should do so. Unlike gift aid, which is a tax relief linked to donors’ tax contributions, the gift aid small donations scheme is a public spending measure, under which the Government pay a top-up of 25p for every pound of eligible donations received, regardless of the donor’s tax status. This scheme was designed to complement gift aid. When we introduced the scheme, we promised that we would review how it was working after three years, and we have done so. It is therefore a pleasure, as a result of that review, to introduce three measures in the Bill that will make further improvements to the scheme.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way before going into more detail. I fully appreciate the need for extra simplicity. Would not a bold step be to assume that all charitable donations are subject to tax relief overall? I appreciate that that cannot be done straightaway because enormous sums are involved, but could that be the trajectory that the Government take ultimately to make the tax treatment of charities incredibly simple indeed?

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we are seeking as much simplicity as we can get, but I will perhaps come on to and tease out during the debate why we want to ensure that that simplicity and light touch goes alongside a degree of assurance. Finding that balance is perhaps one of the areas where a range of views will be expressed. We are keen to have a degree of assurance about the claims made and the public money given to charities.

On the consultation that took place, it might help colleagues to know that John Low, the chief executive of the Charities Aid Foundation, has said:

“The inclusion of a Small Charitable Donations Bill could be good news for charities, particularly for smaller organisations which have often struggled to unlock the benefits of Gift Aid. This provides a real opportunity to simplify the scheme”—

that is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge)—

“and make it fit for the 21st century”.

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a team that goes out promoting these schemes. I was really impressed to read that since 2014 it had given more than 600 presentations to charities of all sorts of sizes, up and down the country, but he is right to say that we can always do more. I really hope that as a result of the Bill and this debate, colleagues will feel that they, too, can play an important role in telling charities in their area the good news that the scheme just got easier. Obviously, we all have a lot of contact with smaller charities in particular, and we get to know them over the years in which we represent them.

The changes are the result of months of consultation and constructive discussion with the charity sector. I thank the hundreds of charities, representative bodies and other organisations that worked with HMRC to make this review work.

Let me turn to the first of our proposed changes. The Bill will make an important change to the criteria for eligibility for the gift aid small donations scheme. Currently, to be eligible, a charity must have been registered for at least two full tax years, and have claimed gift aid in at least two of the previous four tax years, without a gap of longer than a year; obviously, that is around the assurance process. The Bill removes both those criteria, allowing newer and smaller charities to access the scheme sooner. As we all know, for a charity, those early years are important. The change will provide a welcome financial boost when it is most needed. This is a substantial simplification of the scheme; the only remaining eligibility criterion that charities and community amateur sports clubs will need to meet is the gift aid matching requirement, under which charities must claim £1 of full gift aid for every £10 claimed under the small donations scheme.

There are two reasons why we feel it is necessary to retain this rule. The first is to incentivise charities to engage with the full gift aid scheme, which will provide them with even greater income over the longer term. The second is to protect from fraud the small donations scheme, which has substantially fewer record-keeping requirements than gift aid—an important factor that was looked at when the scheme was first designed back in 2012. It is by retaining the rule that donations under the scheme must be matched with gift aid donations that we can best do that. We are simplifying the rules on eligibility as far as possible to allow as many charities as we can to benefit, while protecting the integrity of the scheme.

[James Duddridge]

While I fully support the point that the Minister makes, I can conceive of a time when it is decided in a review that that link is not the correct one. Will the Minister consider adding a clause in Committee that would allow us to take out that requirement without going through the cumbersome primary legislative process in this House again? That would effectively allow her successors to make a slightly different decision in future, without having to come back to the House.

[Jane Ellison]

Clearly, all the points that colleagues make on Second Reading will be carefully considered and debated again in Committee. I understand my hon. Friend’s direction of thinking, but perhaps that will be discussed further in Committee.

The second important change enabled by the Bill is the future proofing of the small donations scheme to ensure that charities that use modern, innovative ways to collect money such as contactless donations will still be able to benefit. The small donations scheme was never intended to cover other methods of donation such as direct debit, online and text messaging, for which well-established and well-used processes for claiming gift aid exist. That remains the case, but we recognise that cash transactions have declined as new, innovative payment technologies have become more prevalent. We believe that the gift aid small donations scheme should keep pace with these amazing modern techniques.

Contactless donations collected using dedicated charity collection terminals share many of the same practical problems as bucket collections. Transactions are instant, and there is little opportunity for fundraisers to engage with donors to solicit a gift aid declaration. The Bill will therefore extend the scheme so that donations made using contactless technology will be eligible for top-up payments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to debate opposite the Minister today, as always.

The Bill primarily makes changes to the gift aid small donations scheme and some technical changes to the tax-free childcare scheme. The Opposition are broadly supportive of the specific measures in this nine-clause Bill, but we have a few concerns, which I will briefly outline.

The gift aid small donations scheme was established, as many are probably aware, in 2012 with cross-party support. The idea behind it was that, in situations where it is impractical to get a gift aid declaration in the usual way, such as through collection boxes or church plates, a charity can claim a gift aid-style top-up payment from the Government. A charity can claim 25% on cash donations of £20 or less, up to a yearly total that is now at £8,000.

Since April 2016, a charity has been able to claim £2,000 in a tax year from the Government under the scheme. However, that is subject to a number of qualifying criteria, which must be met if a charity is to access the scheme in the first instance. The Bill removes a number of those qualifying rules to make it easier for smaller charities to access the scheme. I will run through those changes only briefly, as the Minister has already given a fantastic overview of them.

The scheme currently includes a requirement to have been registered as a charity for at least two full tax years—the two-year eligibility rule. The charity must also have made a successful gift aid claim in at least two of the previous four tax years, with no more than two years’ gap between claims—the two-in-four-years claims rule. Clause 1 removes those two rules entirely and makes consequential amendments to the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 and the secondary legislation that provides for the administration of the scheme.

Clause 2 amends the definition of a small payment to include donations via contactless payments, as we have heard. Clauses 3 and 4 widen the community buildings rules. Clause 3 would essentially allow a charity to claim £8,000 for small donations raised anywhere or up to £8,000 for donations collected from each community building it has. In the latter case, donations would include those

“made in person in the local authority area in which the community building is situated”.

Clause 4 would make a series of amendments to the rules for connected charities making claims, where one or more of the charities runs charitable activities in a community building. A group of charities would then be entitled to make a claim of up to £8,000 for small donations made in the local authority area in which each community building is located. Alternatively, it would be able to make a claim of up to £8,000 for small donations made anywhere in the UK.

When the gift aid small donations scheme was implemented, Labour was generally supportive of the initiative, as the Minister is aware, but we raised concerns at the time that it was quite complex and could create barriers for small charities that could be eligible to claim the top-up payment. Indeed, the Opposition spokesperson at the time said:

“The Bill will make a difference to charities and perhaps changes will be made after the three-year review.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 110.]

The complexity has since been confirmed by the charity sector in practice, and I am pleased that, in this Bill and the consultation preceding it, the Government have acknowledged that there is a problem. However, I am aware that the charity sector has expressed disappointment that the Government have not gone further, a little of which has been reflected in the interventions made so far. The Charity Finance Group, for instance, has said the changes were a missed opportunity for widespread reform of the scheme and that the Government were “locking in future failure”.

In particular, some charities have been calling for changes to the matching requirement, which stipulates that to make a claim under the small donations scheme the charity needs to receive gift aid donations in the same tax year. The total of eligible donations on which the charity can claim a top-up payment is restricted to an amount equal to 10 times the amount of the net donations on which gift aid is claimed for that year. Charity organisations have made representations arguing that changing the matching requirement would remove a significant barrier, particularly for small charities. Indeed, a survey carried out by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations found that 50% of respondents with an income under £10,000 want the matching requirement to be removed or reduced. Will the Minister take the opportunity when summing up to explain in more detail why the Government have not addressed the charity sector’s main concern about the matching requirement?

When discussing eligibility criteria for any kind of Government grant, the issue of fraud must be considered. The Opposition have several concerns about how loosening the eligibility criteria could have an impact on that risk. It is widely known that some charities have been abused in the past, being used as a vehicle to avoid tax and indeed to launder money. In the 1960s and 1970s, there were some high profile cases involving large companies, such as Metal Box and Imperial Tobacco, which used supposed charities to provide education for the children of the UK, but actually spent the money solely to pay the school fees of their directors’ children. That may seem a long time ago, but I am trying to make the point that there is always scope for abuse in such schemes. I hope that the Government will look carefully at any potential loopholes. We must make sure that any loosening of the rules for access to Government grants or tax reliefs does not provide a further incentive for tax avoiders, albeit a small minority, to set up a charity.

I will turn briefly to the elements of the Bill relating to tax-free childcare. Clause 5 will make three minor technical amendments to the tax-free childcare scheme. As the explanatory notes to the Bill explain, under the tax-free childcare scheme, parents will receive top-up payments quarterly and will have to reconfirm at the end of each quarter that they still meet the eligibility criteria. This entitlement period is currently three months, but can be varied by no more than one month by secondary legislation. Clause 5 changes that period to two months, which simply allows for the alignment of eligibility periods for additional children. The other minor change is to the way in which applications for a review of a decision by HMRC can be made. The Bill will allow secondary legislation to be introduced to enable such applications to be made digitally.

Although I appreciate that the Bill makes only minor changes to the tax-free childcare scheme, I believe it is within the scope of a Second Reading debate to discuss the wider policy background. As the Minister will be all too aware, the Opposition have some concerns about tax-free childcare. In particular, the policy is hugely regressive. For instance, the saving is capped at £2,000 per child, as an additional 20p from the Government on top of every 80p spent by the parent, so to get the maximum benefit people would need to spend £10,000 a year on childcare. That is not an option for many working families, and it is not therefore the most efficient way of providing Government support to cover the cost of childcare.

Families certainly need help with childcare costs, which have soared in the past six years of Tory Government. Parents now spend £1,600 more each year than they did in 2010, according to Labour party analysis. According to new data taken from freedom of information requests, costs in some local areas have risen by more than 200%. Labour has established a childcare taskforce, led by the shadow Secretary of State for Education, to bring forward proposals for a comprehensive system of universal, affordable and good quality childcare.

[James Duddridge]

Quite often in these debates, we hear the House of Commons Library quoted, but very rarely do we hear the words “Labour party research”. In order that we can look at those figures in a little more detail, would she be prepared to put that work and the workings that underlie her assertion in the House of Commons Library, so that we can all probe them and reassure ourselves that they are correct and valid figures?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I certainly would. If the hon. Gentleman contacts my office directly, I shall be happy to have a chat or to provide him with details directly so that he can peruse them at his leisure.

I want to point the Minister in the direction of the findings of Labour’s childcare taskforce when they become available. I hope the Government can glean some good ideas from it, because they have a bit of form for borrowing ideas, shall we say, of late. I am pleased that the Chancellor has gleaned some good ideas from the Opposition, especially in respect of investing in our economy. However, I am digressing slightly, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I confirm that the Opposition are broadly supportive of the Bill and the steps within it that will make the gift aid small donations scheme more accessible to smaller charities. That said, we do have some concerns, which I have outlined, and I hope the Minister will address them when he sums up.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is great to catch your eye. It has been a while since I spoke from the Back Benches, and I have certainly never before spoken after the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).

This place is at its best when we can use real-life examples and be a lot more passionate than when we are simply reading from a briefing document. Whether we are talking about the two-and-a-half hours, or however long it takes to make a cup of tea, about charities shovelling snow, which we do not have in Southend—I suspect we do not have the snow, which is something my children would very much like—I share with the hon. Lady some understanding of the credits. My youngest is five, so I greatly sympathise with her. In particular, I thank her for pulling me up and correcting my intervention about whether it was possible under the existing legislation to change the 1:10 ratio, although I would like to return to that in a lot more detail later in my speech.

This is the first time I have spoken from the Back Benches in some time and it is a particular pleasure to do so on the subject of charities. My constituents are an awful lot more interested in charities and what we can do for them in Southend than they are in some of the very good work that I did overseas. Important as that work was, charity begins at home, and in this case it begins in Southend.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that there are some tremendous small charities founded in our communities that seek to help communities abroad, whether by helping orphanages or schools? Does he agree that we need to support them as much as our charities at home?

[James Duddridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for pulling me up. In fact, round the corner from my office is a charity that supports people in Uganda, which was within the geographic patch that I was responsible for. It is indeed a Southend charity and it would receive some of the benefits of this legislation.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), mentioned the great value of churches in the community. Like perhaps other Members, I want to pepper my speech with examples from my constituency. I want to pay particular credit to the Southend Association of Voluntary Services, which pulls together charities and best practice and allows charities to be given the expertise to utilise the types of benefits that the Government are introducing.

It seems like only a hop, skip and a jump since 2006, when I remember throwing two lever-arch folders into my bin in Portcullis House, in the knowledge that I would never again have to look at charities legislation. I should have kept those two Bills, but I went back and looked at the Charities Act 2006. It was a much bigger Bill, with 78 clauses, rather than the nine clauses we are considering today. There are a lot of things that are still relevant today: the debate about whether schools should be charities, and whether education is in itself a charitable good or whether charities need to go out and prove themselves over and above. A lot has changed. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, and there was also a gentleman from Doncaster North—a junior Cabinet Minister with great, or maybe not so great, things ahead of him—who did a good job on that Bill.

One charities issue that was raised during the passage of the 2006 Act was “chugging”, or charities mugging. I notice that the short title of this short, nine-clause Bill is quite wide, so there are perhaps opportunities to insert a few more clauses, whether proposed by Her Majesty’s official Opposition or enthusiastic young Members of Parliament such as myself, or—[Laughter.] It does not say “Pause for laughter” in my notes; that was not a joke. Maybe the Minister will bring forward a review of charities mugging. Even now we get harassed at tube stations, and it is a distraction from the passion for charitable giving that, really, everyone wants to engage in.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Rob Wilson)]

It would probably help my hon. Friend to know that we have reformed the self-regulation of charities. There is a single regulator that is now responsible for those activities, rather than the three that there were before, so we are in a much better position to deal with complaints from the public.

[James Duddridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for that; perhaps he will take this as a complaint from a humble member of the public. If he joined me in trying to get from Fenchurch Street station to Tower Hill in the morning, on the way to the House of Commons, he would see not only the appalling works and the way people are funnelled through, but that the number of charities operating there creates a physical boundary between the two stations, which is a real problem for commuters who otherwise would donate. There are quite a few instances when I have felt less positive about charities, which I am naturally passionate about. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work. Perhaps I could review what has been done while I was looking at other things since 2006, and also perhaps invite him for a cup of coffee on the corner of Fenchurch Street to meet some of my constituents coming into London and encountering the problem.

We are debating the “Small Charitable Donations” Bill, but I am not quite sure what “small” is. A Southend charity set up by Charles Latham and Howard Briggs has looked to provide a capital amount that could be used to provide small loans to micro-opportunities—non-charities but, in some cases, registered charities as well. That developed from a level of £60,000 or £80,000 to become a £1 million or £2 million fund. Even at that level, it considers itself small and has to do all its fund management via the Essex fund. My constituency predecessor, Sir Teddy Taylor, is involved in that fund. It deals with small charities, but I am not sure that it would be helped by the definition of small charities in the Bill.

I am generally a believer in small being beautiful—my wife is very petite—and in relation to charities, the closer the charity stays to an individual cause, the better. The shovels example is, I think, great. Southend’s charity that wants to do some something for targeted HIV/AIDS patients within a certain age category is another fabulous example. There are, however, some bigger charities—I am not going to name them; they do good work—that have somewhat lost their way. These are the ones that we see on the back pages of The Guardian, in case any of my hon. Friends sully themselves with such things—they are very good for the fireplace. We can often find a job with such a charity paying significantly more than an MP’s salary—shock, horror. This could be running a charity, or doing a junior, second-tier director job, but, as I say, small is beautiful and the more we can help small charities with the sort of provisions in the Bill, the better. At the moment, there is a flight for merging charities, meaning that charities get much bigger. When they do, I fear they move too far away from their communities. We should encourage those charities to stay small but numerous.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an amusing but serious point. If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, I, too, will mention some charities in my constituency. When it comes to small charities, does my hon. Friend agree that many of them are struggling at the moment, and that the measures in the Bill will give them boost, especially if we help to publicise them?

[James Duddridge]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that some charities are struggling and that there is a constant shift in funding. I remind Southend charities not to believe all the doom and gloom that was talked pre-Brexit. We are still growing strongly; we are the strongest-growing economy in the G7. Rather than squirreling away money for the rainy day that might come, we should encourage people to spend, enjoy and donate some of that money to charities. The Bill’s measures should allow more of such money to come back to charities.

In common with previous speakers, I should like to mention a charity with which I was involved, although I did not start it up. I was appointed by a charity known as the Bulldog Trust, which is based just down the road from here. Its website said that it was a philanthropy organisation. I thought that it was no good for me because I do not have any significant cash to give to it—it would certainly be a £20 donation from me rather than a £20 million donation—but what this charity does is to link up people who have a skill and want to use it within a charitable organisation. That sent me to the Grow Movement, which at that time was a charity operating in Uganda, Rwanda and Malawi.

I mention that example because I am a little unclear about what happens when a charity such as the Grow Movement is UK based but international. Of the trustees, I think I was the only one domiciled in the UK; it has an international virtual board. We need to make sure that small sums, wherever they might come from, can go to such organisations. At one time it was inconceivable that someone would send a few quid from France or the United States, but now, because of the way the internet is set up, when we purchase something we are quite often asked to “click here” to enable an extra £2 to go to a charity. I urge the Minister to review the position and ensure that charities like the Grow Movement can benefit from this and future legislation.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a series of good points about the impact that the Bill could have on small charities. He has mentioned several in Southend, and I suspect that all of us could mention others in our own constituencies. Is he aware that the inability to reclaim through texts is a possible issue for some of those charities, and does he think that the Minister should reflect on that when winding up the debate? May I also ask what he thinks might be the impact on charities such as scouts groups that sometimes, for example, raise funds using buckets outside supermarkets. Under the new provisions, I think that they will be able to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is doing a Whip’s job, and I do not mind that, but what we cannot have is the making of speeches rather than interventions. I want to try to help everyone, but I cannot allow myself and the Chamber to be tested by a speech rather than an intervention.

[James Duddridge]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, My hon. Friend suffers from having far too many ideas, and I look forward to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. It might help if we heard them over a period rather than all in one go. That would help the hon. Gentleman, and it would help me.

[James Duddridge]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I in no way meant to challenge your ruling, but I did want to deal with the issue of SMS messages. I have absolute confidence in these two excellent Ministers, and I look forward to what will be said today. I shall go into a fair amount of detail about different payment methods later, but at this juncture, suffice it to say that SMS messages are absolutely right for this purpose. As many people have pointed out, people do not necessarily want to give all their details. There is also a demographic issue. My mother-in-law would be very happy to text a £5 donation, but if you ask her to use a smart phone or contactless payments, she thinks you are speaking a different language. It is discriminatory not to enable her to donate by text.

As for the point about the scouting movement—my eldest is going up to the scouts, and they collect—I understand that it will be included, but I hope that the specialists on the Front Bench will clarify the position. Earlier in the debate the changes involving buildings were welcomed. It will still be possible to collect money outside a building rather than inside.

[Jane Ellison]

rose—

[James Duddridge]

One of our excellent Ministers leaps to her feet.

[Jane Ellison]

I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend and, indeed, the whole House that this is a very positive measure for bob-a-job schemes up and down the country. I am sure that scouts and other uniformed youth groups will welcome it.

[James Duddridge]

The Minister takes me back to my own bob-a-job days in the Scouts. There was the Whip thinking that bob-a-job was something that one did on the Back Benches in order to progress in the future.

[Richard Graham]

Contrary to what has been suggested, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a bob-a-job contribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that this could also be incredibly helpful to armed forces cadets and other charities? I am thinking particularly of those who help people to pack items that they have bought in shops. Small amounts of money will often be collected in buckets to go to small causes, and the Minister has just confirmed that that will be covered.

[James Duddridge]

Another point is that charitable giving then begins to be inculcated in young people in particular. Their small donations, to both small and big charities, bring them into the system. Certainly, when I see someone under the age of 16 collecting for poppies or Help for Heroes, I feel that the future of the country is in safe hands.

I intervened on the Minister to ask about deeming all donations tax-free. I am sympathetic to Her Majesty’s Opposition’s points about complexity. The points have been made well today, just as they were three years ago, as Opposition Front-Bench Members pointed out. The sooner we can get through all this complexity and decide that the basic rate of tax should come back from all moneys en bloc that are given to charities in small amounts, the better. I will say more about how we define “small amounts” later.

I shall turn now to the specifics of the Bill. Clause 2 deals with the meaning of the term “small donation”, and subsection (3) refers to the United Kingdom. However, clause 6, which deals with the extent of the Bill, refers to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Forgive me if I am being stupid, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think that they amount to the same thing. I would be grateful if that provision could be amended, if only as a tidying-up exercise, or if the difference could be explained.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Before my hon. Friend moves on from the question of cash amounts, does he agree that £20 is a sensible figure? Opting for a larger amount could involve a risk of fraud or misuse, but £20 is still a substantial enough amount to make a significant difference.

[James Duddridge]

I do not know how to say this gently—no, I do not think that that is a sensible amount. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I think that that is an arbitrary amount. Why not choose £10 or £25? Is it because we have £20 notes but not £25 notes? I worry when I see legislation that cites numbers but makes no provision whatever to take account of inflation. Would such an amount be uprated annually? If that is the case, we would end up with odd numbers in subsequent years. Alternatively, should we let things drift and conduct a review every five years, and then put the amount up by 25%? I would like the figure to be set an awful lot higher.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being patient about this point. Can he not see that the amount could be reviewed over a number of years? In fact, it has been reviewed in that way in the past, and there will doubtless be opportunities for it to be reviewed again in the future, if not by this place, perhaps through an order to be dealt with by the Minister. Would that not be a sensible approach?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

To review is sensible, but I think that the process should be carried out periodically to take account of inflation, instead of wasting a Minister’s time every three years. I would not want to have to come back here to review this Bill in another three years. We should be much more permissive about what we allow Ministers to do. On my hon. Friend’s underlying point, yes there could be fraud, but there can be fraud in any system. Do I think that the good people who are involved in charities would commit fraud for such a small sum of money? I do not.

I have a large number of points that I would like to make. I hope that I will be able to make them in the Public Bill Committee, if I am selected to serve on it in the coming days and weeks.

Finance Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady, perfectly understandably, is seeking more information at this point. I do not think I am being in any way unreasonable in saying that we will set out the details of this in the near future. We are working very closely with interested parties, whether the industry or consumer groups, to ensure that we get this right. We have set out the broad principles behind our guidance guarantee, and we believe that we can deliver something that provides the protection that all Members want.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I understand the need for a professional to offer guidance face to face and on a quality end-product. However, may I urge my hon. Friend to consider the use of the internet and technology to collect the basic information? It makes no sense for a qualified financial consultant to take one and a half to two hours to do a basic fact-find that is actually about data collection. It is much more efficient to do that on the internet and use the time spent face to face for guidance right at the end of the process.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s observation. Without getting too much into the details of what we will announce in due course, it is important to point out that there are various means and methods of delivering guidance and that different people will want different things. We have made it clear that face-to-face guidance will be available for those who want it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Indeed, I have just signed off a parliamentary answer to one of his questions about this. If I recall correctly, I said that these regimes, in essence, work on an individual basis but matters can be kept under review. I will certainly take his comments as a representation for future reform in this area.

The clauses I have been talking about increase the amount that can be taken as a tax-free lump sum and as a drawdown pension from 27 March 2014. In addition, the Government’s new clauses and new schedule make changes to schedule 29. As I have explained before, on Budget day the Government published a tax information impact note entitled “Increasing pension flexibility”, which covered the impact of the changes set out in clauses 39 and 40. That impact note has been updated to reflect the changes made by new clause 13 and new schedule 5.

As I have previously said, the changes made by clauses 39 and 40 are likely to be of particular benefit to individuals with smaller pension wealth, including women. The same applies to the changes that would be made by new clause 13 and new schedule 5. That is set out in the tax information impact note that was published on 27 June.

I have already mentioned that the Government published a consultation, “Freedom and choice in pensions”, on the broader measures announced in the Budget. That document set out the rationale and the relevant analysis behind the Government’s proposals and invited comments on the expected impacts. The consultation will inform the final shape of the Government’s proposals, including the guidance guarantee. The Government will set out further details in their response to this consultation, which will be published shortly.

[James Duddridge]

I always find terms like “shortly” confusing. Is “shortly” in the next few weeks, in the next the few months or before the next general election? Perhaps, while not giving an exact date, my hon. Friend might hone it down a little finer than the very broad term “shortly.”

[Mr Gauke]

I used the word “shortly;” I could have said “in due course,” but I hope that my hon. Friend is more encouraged by “shortly.” He will just have to be a little more patient, but I can assure him that it will not be very long before he will be satisfied on those details.

Let me say a brief word about guidance, which I have touched on already. The Government believe that, as people have greater choice over retirement, they will need the right support and guidance to make the choice that is right for them, so we are working to ensure that everyone approaching retirement with a defined-contribution pension can receive impartial, face-to-face guidance on the choices available to them. However, the guidance guarantee is not a tax rule, so I hope that hon. Members will understand that although it is a very important part of the radical reforms that we are introducing from April 2015, it does not form part of the changes being discussed today.

The Government have already published information on the impact of clauses 39 and 40, as well as on new clause 13 and new schedule 5, and have consulted further on their broader proposals. New clause 9 is therefore unnecessary. Whether that is enough to persuade the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun not to press her case, I somewhat doubt, and no doubt she will put it very reasonably, but I hope that she considers my response reasonable as well. Whether she considers it reasonable or not, that is my response.

The overall purpose of the changes that the Government are making today is to enable people who had recently taken the tax-free lump sum from their defined-contribution pension savings to use the new flexibility, while remaining in broadly the same tax position. I therefore hope that new clause 13 and new schedule 5 will be added to the Bill, and I request that new clause 9 is not pressed to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

I find this issue rather exciting, although clearly the House does not, given how empty the Chamber is. The pension changes that the Government are bringing forward are absolutely essential and, I think, will transform the marketplace in the long term. However, I am concerned that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), having suffered the Finance Bill in Committee, seems to have spent the intervening time reading the Hansard reports of what we all said. Really, it is too much of a punishment to do that and then have to come back yesterday and today. Thankfully we will have Third Reading later this evening, if all goes well.

On new clause 13, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary talked entirely about defined contribution schemes. When he winds up, perhaps he will update the House on what is happening with defined benefit schemes, or perhaps there are no transitional issues for defined benefit schemes in the new clause. I think it is entirely right to give people plenty of time to look at these issues, because a number of people were not expecting these changes and would not have predicted them, so they will need longer to consider their personal positions. As time goes on, I think that there will be less need for guidance and advice, whether provided by the state or privately, because people now going into defined contribution schemes will know what the options are likely to be when they come out. Indeed, five years from now it will be slightly more predictable. People should look at that years, rather than just a few months, before they retire. Of course, that is not possible immediately, given that these changes have only just come in.

[Gregg McClymont]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the other arm of the Government on this, the Pensions Minister, has developed a whole pensions policy based on the notion that inertia has to be harnessed for the public good, meaning that, as a rule, people are not aware of the complexities of pensions and there therefore needs to be a system in place so that those who do not exercise a choice still get a good outcome. Is the hon. Gentleman really that confident that we will very quickly reach a situation in which there will be informed consumers across the board who can make the kinds of investment decisions to which he is referring?

[James Duddridge]

I think that the default position will be that an annuity is purchased, rather than a lump sum being withdrawn. I think the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is the more cautious route, but I am concerned that it is not the right route for some people. Taking out a lump sum might make a lot more sense for them. However, it is an additional option. The guidance that the Government are offering is not perfect. In fact, perfect advice, if it is taken forward to a recommendation, is incredibly expensive.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful response. I am not sure that the default position will be that someone is defaulted into an annuity. We need clarity on that as we discuss these clauses. I think that a choice will have to be exercised one way or another, but I might be wrong. Perhaps the Minister will provide clarity on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

The Minister, as ever, will provide clarity, and I will ensure that he has plenty of time to do so.

We need to look at these changes in the round and consider other changes being made, particularly the individual savings account legislation that is going through. In the longer term, I think that ISAs and pensions will be linked and that we will move towards the individual retirement accounts we see in America, but working more from the base of an ISA up to a pension, rather than a merging of the two or a dumbing down of pensions.

An earlier intervention referred to spouse-to-spouse transfers on ISAs, which I think are particularly relevant in relation to new clause 13 and defined contribution pensions, because some people will be taking larger sums of money out and investing them directly into an ISA with little awareness that it cannot then be transferred to their spouse. The earlier the Government look at making spouse-to-spouse transfers exempt for inheritance tax, the better, particularly during this early transition period. The Sunday Times and a number of other financial services campaigners are urging the Government to look at the issue of spouse-to-spouse transfer, but I have not heard it mentioned with regard to the release of lump sums and defined contribution lump sums. Through new clause 13 the Government are recognising that there are transitional issues, but the additional transitional issue relating to ISAs has not necessarily been covered.

I welcome the reduction from £20,000 to £12,000, which entrusts individuals to make decisions. Changes to trivial contributions are also very welcome, particularly as people move from employer to employer, building up large numbers of very small pots. It may not make financial sense to merge them, so it may be better to take them out of a pension tax wrapper and independently move them to an ISA.

On the issue of guidance, we should be open and honest that the Government cannot afford to provide full-blown advice and recommendation. It is very good of the Government to allocate a significant sum of money to pointing people in the right direction. If the average pot is £30,000, as we have heard, the thousands of pounds that full-blown advice and recommendation may cost would be totally disproportionate to the potential benefit.

It is good to get guidance, but I would exercise caution about what is best: face-to-face guidance is not always the best option. If I wanted to transfer money or enact a financial transaction, I would not want to sit down face to face with my bank manager. I would much prefer the tried and tested method of interacting with and getting advice and guidance through the internet, at least at an early stage. I would not want the Government spending all the money on face-to-face guidance. Guidance on the internet may well be better for an increasing number of people, including a mini fact find into which they put their basic information.

The change may be from face-to-face to face-to-faces. Financial services presentations can work face to face, but they can also work over the internet. Once people have completed an initial fact find or an overview of their financial position—they may want to use their lump sum to repay debt, for instance—they could be diverted to an individual webcast with the relevant financial guidance.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking from his experience of the sector, for giving way again. Would he care to comment on why the existing annuities market was not working? My understanding of the analysis is that the default position of individuals was simply to accept what they were offered and not to get involved in the type of process to which he refers. If that means that the annuities market was a failure because people were not getting value for money as a result of not shopping around, what confidence does he have that there will be an overnight revolution in people’s engagement with the type of guidance he suggests?

[James Duddridge]

The annuities market was not working effectively in a number of ways, but, in relation to the lump sum, it did not work for a lot of our constituents if they rationally expected a very low life expectancy. If they had been diagnosed with a particular illness, the question of what would happen to their money would cause them great stress. It is important, therefore, to enable them to release some of that pension money and put it into another instrument so that their family can share it or, indeed, so that they can enjoy it themselves in their final years. I understand there is a risk of people under-predicting their longevity, but the large number of people with a diagnosed illness would like to access that pot. That is a slightly extreme position, but it is at the other end of the scale.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point about encouraging people to shop around, but is he aware that many parts of these islands do not have very good internet access, so putting all the eggs in that basket will not help many people who want pensions advice?

[James Duddridge]

I agree that we should not put all the eggs in one basket, but we certainly should not put none in the internet basket. It is a very useful provision and, as public and domestic access to broadband improves throughout the islands, I think that use of the internet will speed things up.

I find it odd that so much of our discussion about this Finance Bill, which is a Treasury matter, has been about pensions Bills. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has prayed in aid the Pensions Minister’s submission to the Department for Work and Pensions. I wonder whether we conduct our debates on Finance Bills in the right way, structurally speaking, and whether other departmental Ministers should be involved, where relevant, alongside Treasury Ministers. Fundamentally, the report supported by Opposition Members almost amounts to a fundamental review of a number of issues in the pensions industry, which is clearly in the remit of the DWP, not the Treasury. I am not arguing that it is wrong or right; it is just that not all the key players are involved.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the fact that these pensions provisions are being handled by the Treasury. Does he agree that the two pensions Bills announced in the Queen’s speech appear to pull in different directions? One is about giving people more control over their money, while the other is about collective direct contribution schemes, which are the opposite of that. That could lead to a conflict, because two Departments are involved in developing the policy.

[James Duddridge]

I do not believe they are contradictory, because some people want to hand over that level of responsibility.

I know that other Members want to speak. I wanted to make a number of other points, but I will sit down and leave it at that in order to give the Minister a chance to respond.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me quickly try to address some of the points that have been raised, many of which related to guidance. As I said earlier, the issue features in Labour’s new clause 9, but it is not directly related to the Finance Bill. I will be as helpful as I can. On the question of whether guidance will only be face to face, the face-to-face offer will be available to those who need and want it. However, that is not to say that it will be the exclusive delivery channel. Not everyone will want face-to-face guidance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) has made clear. For many people, both now and in the future, other channels will better suit their needs. We are currently considering the appropriate range of options for delivery channels, to ensure that consumer needs are properly understood and met, building on the views and evidence received during the consultation. We have asked the Financial Conduct Authority, working closely with the Pensions Regulator, the Pensions Advisory Service, the Money Advice Service and consumer groups, to co-ordinate a set of clear and robust standards that the guidance will have to meet.

The point was made about costs and, in particular, the £20 million funding. It is important to realise that that is a development fund for the purpose of getting the initiative up and running; it is not to pay for the ongoing costs of the scheme. We will talk more about that later.

Finance Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The shadow Chief Secretary says it is a tax cut for investment managers. They are different from hedge fund managers; however, as I have already explained at some length, the tax cut will benefit the investor, not the managers.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I sense from the mood of the House that the Opposition are thinking of opposing new clause 7. If they are, will my hon. Friend make it clear how many hard-working savers will be hit by not receiving this benefit?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is investors in pension schemes who will bear the cost. The UK investment management industry, which exists up and down the country—we had a debate about the regional nature of that industry—will also be damaged. The cost makes it hard for UK-domiciled funds to compete. We want UK-domiciled funds to compete. [Interruption.] Maybe that is not Labour’s position, although I note that the shadow Chief Secretary seems to be accepting from a sedentary position that this is not a tax cut for hedge funds.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Let me begin where the Minister left off, on new clause 7. It is worth noting that section 74 of the Finance Act 2003 provides SDLT relief for lessees of flats who collectively acquire the freehold of their block under rights afforded by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The relief sets the rate of SDLT according to the consideration for the freehold divided by the number of flats, which brings the amount of SDLT paid by lessees more into line with what they might have paid had they been able to acquire the freehold of their flats separately. As the Minister said, such acquisitions are commonly undertaken by a company in which the lessees are shareholders. Under such circumstances, the 15%, higher rate SDLT charge in schedule 4A to the Finance Act 2003 will apply if the main consideration exceeds the higher rate threshold.

The Minister pointed out that clause 105 reduces the higher rate threshold from £2 million to £500,000 for transactions where the effective date is on or after 20 March 2014. However, clause 105 omitted to apply the reduction to the relief in schedule 74 to the Finance Act 2003, an omission that new clause 7 rectifies. It is welcome that the Minister has brought forward something to deal with that earlier omission and I will therefore not take issue with him on that at present.

Let me turn to amendment 67 and stamp duty reserve tax. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I confess to having a sense of déjà vu, because it is not the first time we have debated this issue. Not only did we debate it in Committee, as the Minister acknowledged; we also debated it in last year’s Finance Bill. In fact, it is almost a year ago to the day that my esteemed colleague the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) was standing at this Dispatch Box trying, as I will be, to make the Government see sense and accept our call for a report to be published. [Interruption.] I think my hon. Friend is indicating that he failed on that occasion.

[James Duddridge]

You’re a better woman.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman says I am a better woman, but I have to confess that I was not able to persuade the Minister in Committee. However, as always, I am an optimist by nature, so I will venture forth today in the hope, even at this late stage, that the Government can be made to see the light and accept our call for a report to be published.

As I mentioned, it is almost a year ago to the day that my colleague the hon. Member for Nottingham East was standing at this Dispatch Box. It would be remiss of me not to remark briefly that, some 15 years ago to the day, I was in the Scottish Parliament for the formal opening of that august institution. If anyone had suggested to me then that 15 years later I would be standing at this Dispatch Box discussing stamp duty reserve tax, I might have fled and looked for something else to do. Who knows? It certainly was not something that was on my agenda at that point.

However, to return to the amendment, for the benefit of anyone who may have forgotten, amidst all the excitement of the last year, exactly what we were speaking about on that occasion, I want briefly to recap some of the key points from the debate. It is worth noting what our amendment 67 proposes. For those who are following this debate with avid interest, it asks the Government to insert at the end of clause 107, page 90, line 33 a new section 5A, stating:

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish and lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the impact of changes made to Schedule 19 of the Finance Act 1999 by this section.”

A new section 5B is then proposed:‘

“The report referred to in subsection (5A) must in particular consider…the impact on tax revenues;…the expected beneficiaries; and…a distributional analysis of the beneficiaries.”

I shall return to those issues in responding to the Minister’s points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately and I absolutely agree. Employee ownership is something we should be talking about and finding ways to support. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government wasted the opportunity to boost the cause of employee ownership and shareholding, and have undermined it by framing the argument so unfairly. It smacks of the Adrian Beecroft fire-at-will proposals and does not ring true for most businesses, which do not want to conduct their affairs in that way. They want an equal partnership with their employees to build the business together, knowing that in most circumstances their work force are their key asset. Undermining and cutting employment rights will potentially undermine the trust in a business between employers and employees. That is not the way to build a successful, strong business for the future.

The policy was the centrepiece of the Chancellor’s speech to the 2012 Conservative party conference. He suggested at the time that his grand idea would herald a new three-way deal between employer, employee and the Government, in which employees give up their employment rights, the company gives shares and the Government grant tax exemptions on those shares. In his words, it is swapping “old rights”—as if they are no longer required—

“with new rights of ownership.”

I want to be absolutely clear that we do not oppose the concept of employee ownership. We are aware of its benefits for both employees and employers alike, but we strongly object to its being linked to the removal of employment rights, which serves to undermine the whole concept. Ministers need to make it easier to hire people, not to fire them, but the Chancellor is kidding absolutely nobody by trying to claim that the scheme does anything other than encourage that.

The Chancellor talks about new types of ownership rights, but the Employee Owner Association, which describes itself as the voice of co-owned business, has pointed out that the scheme serves only to discredit and undermine genuine employee ownership schemes—schemes that we fully support. The chief executive of the Employee Ownership Association has said:

“There is absolutely no need to dilute the rights of workers in order to grow employee ownership and no data to suggest that doing so would significantly boost employee ownership.

Indeed all of the evidence is that employee ownership in the UK is growing and the businesses concerned thriving, because they enhance not dilute the working conditions and entitlements of the workforce.”

We need only look at the comments of our colleagues in the other place, including a number of former Tory Cabinet Ministers, before they voted down these measures to see that that view is shared by pretty much everyone outside the Government. Lord O’Donnell said:

“If an employer is offering this, they are probably the kind of employer that you do not want to go near. If an employee accepts it, it is probably because they do not really understand what they are doing. On those grounds, it is bad.”

He went on to ask a question:

“we know that in the old days the price of slavery was 20 or 30 pieces of silver. Is it now £2,000?” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 617.]

I could not discuss shares for rights without reminding right hon. and hon. Members of the view of the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. He described the scheme as having

“all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 614.]

Perhaps the Minister will respond to those comments today.

In new clause 11, the Opposition are trying to probe the Government on the take-up that the scheme has achieved so far. A cursory search for “shares for rights” on an internet search engine suggests that things have not been a roaring success. It turns up the following headlines. The FT.com website states, “Chancellor’s ‘shares for rights’ plan flops”. The Guardian says, “George Osborne’s shares-for-rights scheme doesn’t add up”. The Telegraph says, “No take-up on ‘rights for shares’”, as well as, “George Osborne’s flagship rights for shares scheme risks falling flat”. The specialist human resources website, XpertHR, sums it up well with, “Shares for rights: 1.7% of UK employers plan to use employee shareholder contracts, XpertHR research finds”. Even the Deputy Prime Minister has contributed to the headlines, with FT.com reporting in January that “Nick Clegg urges end of ‘shares for rights’”.

I am quoting headlines from internet searches because it is incredibly difficult to get any information out of the Government on the take-up and impact of the policy. The purpose of the new clause is to get to the truth. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) is frantically searching on his hand-held device. Perhaps he has found some alternative headlines that he would like to share with the House. Would he like to intervene?

[James Duddridge]

I assure the hon. Lady that I do not do anything frantically. I have been searching. I think that it was on Google, but I am not very good at using this little hand-held box. HR magazine says, “Osborne’s shares for rights scheme could help SMEs”. I do not know whether she needs to update her search engine or whether she is using an internal Labour party search engine that filters out good news stories.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I would be interested to hear more details of that story once the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the entry on his search engine. I am sure that it will help him to provide a robust response to my comments when he speaks in this debate. I look forward to hearing the positive story that he has to tell about the shares for rights scheme. I think that he might be a lone voice in this debate, but good luck to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before the soothsayers and the sketch writers say again that Labour is anti-something or other, I want to make something quite clear. [Interruption.] The sketch writer is in the Gallery, although perhaps I am being a little arrogant to think that anyone would want to report on one of my speeches. Before the press releases go out from Tory central office saying that Labour is anti-share save schemes all of a sudden, I want to make it clear that this party has always been in favour of shares to reward people for the work they do.

The best and most successful companies offer shares to their most successful employees. Indeed, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to how successful a share save scheme can be by using the example—a Welsh example—of Admiral Insurance. In March 2013, it recorded a 15% increase in profits. In all, 6,500 members of staff at the Cardiff-based Admiral Group will get £3,000 in an employee share save scheme. Alastair Lyons, the chair, said at the time:

“I want to thank everyone who has helped us to create such a robust business”

in the past 20 years. People are more productive, happier and more contented when they are valued and, above all, when they feel valued. That is why the Admiral Group of companies are among the top 100 best places in the UK to work, which I am sure did not come about by trading in employee rights for shares.

Sometimes it seems that this Government are so intent on presenting some sort of radical, compassionate conservatism that they fumble around for an idea, before coming back to ideas that have failed time and again. Very often, it seems that this Government, like previous Tory-led Administrations, are fearful of employment rights, and I am not the only one saying that. According to even the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—if I may digress, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government are resisting requiring that very body to audit all parties’ manifestos at the next general election—the flagship shares for rights scheme has been rejected by businesses, opened up a tax loophole and will lead to £1 billion being lost by the Exchequer. In the face of such criticism, it seems eminently sensible to support our amendment for it would compel the Treasury to report on the take-up of shares for rights, collect data on the scheme and publish further reports on shares for rights every year.

[James Duddridge]

Is there not a contradiction between the argument that the scheme will lose billions and saying that it is being taken up by nobody?

[Chris Evans]

I have the utmost respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he should allow me to develop the argument a bit further. As he knows very well, this is a Finance Bill, and the Opposition cannot move any amendments that relate to spending. A report is the only thing we can propose, and it would be eminently sensible. If we had the data, we would know what the uptake was. I would argue that the Government have to abandon their ill thought out “shares for rights” policy, which even the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies described as having

“all the hallmarks of another avoidance opportunity”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) alluded to the Conservative employment Minister Lord Forsyth who described it as having

“the trappings of something that was thought up in the bath”—

by the Government on their own, I hope, although we don’t know with Tory sleaze! It is bad enough that this divisive policy undermines the concept of employee ownership and workers’ rights, but it could also cost the Exchequer up to £1 billion, a quarter of that arising from tax planning activity—the very tax planning activity that the Chancellor said he had clamped down on since he took office.

Fundamentally, the problem that employees have faced over the last 40 years with the end of heavy industry—it is a problem that comes with Governments of all stripes—is that most feel insecure in their jobs anyway. People do not have a job for life any more; they move around seven or eight types of jobs, but slashing employment rights at work is wrong in principle. It will not help create jobs and growth. It seems to me that this is a policy made up on the fly.

If anybody wants to know how ill-conceived this policy is, they need only look at some statistics. The scheme has not won the support of the business community. A 33-week consultation on the scheme—two thirds of the year, or nine months—had more than 200 responses. Of those, only five businesses said they would be interested in taking up the scheme.

I sometimes think I admire the Chancellor. He is an economist—of the highest rank, I have no doubt—but I wish he were here to explain how he came up with the line:

“Owners, workers and the taxman are all in it together”.

Where was the sense in that? It is just not fully worked out. Has he not asked the employer? If an employer has a bad employee, why would he want to give them shares and make them owners of the company? That does not make sense to me. The employee would then have voting rights over what the employer wanted to do. Why would an employee want shares in a company that had just dismissed him? It should be easier to hire than fire.

We need tax breaks for small businesses so that they can hire extra employees rather than throw away their employment rights. As a proud Labour and Co-op MP, I support employee ownership, but coupling it with slashing employment rights is contradictory and counter-productive. As the Employee Ownership Association has pointed out, boosting employee ownership

“does not require a dilution of rights”.

Even a city on the hill, the United States of America, where employee rights are certainly not in fashion, has criticised the scheme. The proposal reflects the “fire at will” recommendations of the controversial Beecroft report, authored by the Prime Minister’s employment tsar and Tory donor, Adrian Beecroft. Mr Beecroft admitted to MPs that his proposals were based not on any statistical or empirical evidence but on a “valid sample of people”. Who has he spoken to? No doubt the same Tories who have problems with the employment rights of anybody anywhere.

The scheme could also present considerable costs to business and create new administrative burdens. I believe that people are already being deterred from taking up the scheme. Alan Higham told The Guardian:

“I worry it would create suspicion among employees that I might sack them unfairly. Employees wouldn’t easily be able to see the value in the shares today…If I employ 10 staff and decided to give them £2,000 each of shares, then I would need to spend £10,000 in getting a professional valuation done. Under current tax rules I would also have paid them £2,000 each to change their contract, on which PAYE and national insurance would be charged. As this is a gift I would also have to pay tax on this. On this basis it could cost me £10,000 and a further £9,400 to give away £20,000 of shares. There will probably also be some sort of ongoing admin and HMRC compliance to do, which will also cost.”

Fundamental questions must be asked about this entire scheme. If the company goes bankrupt—if the employer is so bad that he runs his company into the ground—does the employee he has just sacked become responsible for any of the company’s losses? If the employee has shares in the company, of course he will.

Ministers are seeking to introduce this scheme without proper consultation and discussion. They have proceeded in a shambolic and chaotic way. That is reflected by the fact that the Second Reading of the Bill that became the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 took place before the consultation had closed.

Given that £10,600 of capital gains tax is already exempt, exemption from CGT in the scheme is only likely to benefit employee shareholders in a small minority of companies which achieve unusually high growth. There is also concern about the full cost of the scheme. Ministers originally claimed that it would be £100 in 2017-18, but according to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s contribution to the Treasury’s policy costing document, which was released along with the 2012 autumn statement 2012,

“the cost is expected to rise towards £1 billion”,

and the OBR concluded that

“uncertainties are around assumptions on take up rates, the average value of shares that are entered into the scheme, the extent of tax planning and the timing of disposals.”

What really concerns me is that a person could throw away all his employment rights in return for shares that could already be tumbling. There is no win-win situation for such people.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, a quarter of that £1 billion additional cost—£250 million—is expected to arise from tax avoidance as a result of the scheme. A Government who have been obsessive about tax avoidance seem to be creating another vehicle for people to avoid taxation. Following the publication of the Government’s response to the consultation scheme, a Government source was quoted as saying:

“The proposals are on life support.”

However, Ministers went ahead with them. I wonder whether this Minister knows who that person was, and whether he can enlighten us.

It seems to me that the scheme is unworkable. When “shares for rights” were discussed during the Committee stage of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), admitted that employees taking part in the scheme could be liable to pay income tax and national insurance on any shares received from employers over and above £2,000. That would impose a significant up-front cost on employees.

It is feared that there are other ways in which the scheme could have an adverse impact on employees. For example, will jobs be advertised as available only with employee shareholder status? In practice, will employers be able to impose the scheme on individual employees or groups of employees? What safeguards will there be to ensure that the scheme is voluntary for existing employees, as Ministers claim that it will be?

On behalf of the members of the Employee Ownership Association, chief executive lain Hasdell sent an open letter to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is responsible for employment relations, consumer and postal affairs, expressing concern about recent developments in the Government’s approach to growing the number of employee owners in the economy. He said:

“'Our Members have three main concerns on this matter.

Firstly, proposed legislation has appeared in a Bill before the Government consultation on the possibility of deploying this model of employee ownership has finished. Indeed it has only just started.

Secondly, our Members are very aware that there is no need to reduce the rights of workers in order to grow employee ownership and no data to suggest that doing so would significantly boost the number of employee owners. Indeed all of the evidence is that employee ownership in the UK is growing and the businesses concerned thriving, because they enhance not dilute the working conditions and entitlements of employee owners.”

In that context, I remind the House of what I said about Admiral Insurance in Cardiff at the beginning of my speech. Iain Hasdell continued:

“Thirdly, the appearance of this measure in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill appears to our Members to be completely disconnected to the recommendations in the Nuttall Review. That Review contained a series of recommendations on how to grow employee ownership and none of those recommendations suggested the dilution of worker rights.”

I am not the only person who is saying these things, and that is why I believe that we should have a report. The criticism of this measure has been immense, from the business community and employment organisations to trade unions—some Members on the Government Benches will probably think I have sworn there. The Employee Ownership Association says:

“whilst growing employee ownership should be part of the UK’s Industrial Policy, such growth does not require a dilution of the rights and working conditions of employees.”

Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary, said:

“We deplore any attack on maternity provision or protection against unfair dismissal, but these complex proposals do not look as if they will have very much impact, as few small businesses will want to tie themselves up in the tangle of red tape necessary to trigger these exemptions.”

There, in a nutshell, is the problem: there is low take-up; it is very complicated; people are not interested. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, we see maternity provision, a hard-fought right that many people argued and fought for and in some cases gave their lives for, being given up for the whim of a few shares in a company that could be either taken over or finished in a couple of years.

Mike Emmett, employee relations adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, says:

“The UK has one of the least regulated labour markets in the world and there is little evidence to suggest that employment regulation is preventing small businesses from taking people on. In fact, according to the Government’s own research, unfair dismissal doesn’t even figure in the list of top ten regulations discouraging them from recruiting staff. Employees have little to gain by substituting their fundamental rights for uncertain financial gain and employers have little to gain by creating a two tier labour market.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The truth is that any tax gap, however big or small, is unacceptable to the public, and strong action should always be taken to tackle it. I was about to say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and that it was £32 billion. As I say, that is too high, and it has gone up to £35 billion under this Government. These large sums of money shake the public’s confidence when it comes to believing that the Government are doing everything they can to tackle tax avoidance.

[James Duddridge]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will take further interventions later, but I want to make some progress.

What else has been happening on this Government’s watch? The Government have raised expectations in respect of some aspects of their tax avoidance policy, but they have not been met. In particular—we have put this point to the Minister on many occasions—the Swiss deal, which was supposed to bring in £3.12 billion, a sum that would have gone some way towards making a dent in the tax gap, has in fact brought in only £818 million. I know the Minister will say that the figures were okayed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility when the costings were put in the Red Book, but that does not mean that the Minister can simply get away with it. At the end of the day, there is an unexplained and substantial difference between what was meant to happen as a result of that deal and what did in fact happen, raising questions about the substance of the deal.

Another feature of public debate as the issue of tax avoidance has shot up the public agenda relates to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If we are to close the tax gap, we need HMRC to be as effective as possible. Last year’s Public Accounts Committee report “Tax avoidance: tackling marketed avoidance schemes” found that HMRC did not know how much it spent on its anti-avoidance work and had not evaluated the effectiveness of its efforts. It calls for HMRC to improve its recording and monitoring of the cost of its anti-avoidance work and to set out clearly how it will evaluate its anti-avoidance strategy. This is a substantial gap in knowledge; again, it has a direct impact on the Government’s ability to tackle tax avoidance effectively and thereby close the tax gap.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

James Duddridge Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and then make progress.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

If we had followed the policies of the Labour party, we would not have created 1.3 million jobs and those people would have been on benefits.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have also created the right incentives so that work pays. Alongside supporting business—by the way, extraordinarily, the Labour party last night voted to increase taxes on business—we are creating an environment in which jobs are being created.

We are creating a fairer welfare state.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

James Duddridge Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I will not break with tradition and agree with everything that thehon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has said, but I wish her well with getting the Siemens plant. I saw some Siemens wind farms onshore in Morocco in the western Sahara recently, and they are very effective.

Reflecting on the hon. Lady’s quip about our coalition partners, which was somewhat unfair but slightly amusing, I noticed that the Chancellor is announcing a competition to determine what will be on the tails side of the coin. Heads you win; tails you lose, and I hope that at the general election, the Opposition will lose. Perhaps it would be appropriate to commemorate a failed Labour politician on the coin.

The hon. Lady talked about unemployment. I have looked forward, particularly during the past year and a half, to receiving the excellent House of Commons Library brief on unemployment by constituency, which is rich in information on what is happening. Time and again over the past 12 months, the unemployment rate in my constituency has fallen significantly.

I was pleased to hear that the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training—NEETs—had declined to its lowest level UK-wide since 2008. I appreciate, however, that there are unacceptable differences across the country and that some constituencies have yet to feel the benefit. I am sure we all hope that it will be felt in the near future. The extension of the apprenticeship grant for employers to 2015-16 will certainly help, not only in places such as Prospects college in my constituency but in other constituencies where the unemployment situation is even more acute.

The people of Rochford and Southend East will be delighted by this Budget. It will mean more money in the pockets of hard-working people, homeowners and motorists. As the Chancellor put it, it is a Budget for the makers, the doers and particularly the savers. I will focus on the savings element of the Budget later. From an Essex perspective, people in my constituency will be pleased to hear that fuel duty has been frozen once again, providing a saving of 20%, given the rise that would have taken place had it not been blocked. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on campaigning for that change, and I commend the Chancellor for implementing it.

There was also good news on bingo. We did not get the 15% tax cut that had been requested, but one of 10%. The good people at the Mecca bingo hall in the Victoria ward in Southend might now invite me back. They told me last time that I would not really be welcomed back—[Hon. Members: “Aah!] Yes, I was somewhat surprised, but they were kind to me and said that they had voted for me. However, they made the mistake of allowing me to be the bingo caller, and I got it all wrong. I did not know my fat ladies from my two little ducks, or whatever it is. They told me: “Stick to the day job. Stick to politics.” I will do that, but I might go back and play bingo with them to celebrate the tax cut.

Thanks to this Government and to the Chancellor’s resilience, we will be able to keep interest rates low. This is critical; not enough has been said about interest rates, but they form the backdrop to the economy. The income tax personal allowance is to be increased again, to £10,500. This will really help working families and, in particular, it will help women who have had children to get back into work, perhaps working part time. It is crucial that they should be able to do that relatively early, to maintain a good employment history.

As a cider drinker and a beer drinker—not at the same time—I very much appreciate the Chancellor’s 1p cut in duty. It is a small amount, but it is a nod in the right direction. Based on the average price of a pint in a pub or a club, it means that for every 200 pints hon. Members drink, they will effectively get one free. It is a step in the right direction, and I think a few people in the House and in our constituencies will have a drink to say thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer tonight.

The export package is fantastic. It will help companies such as Ipeco, which makes the pilots’ seats for every single Boeing. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that it is based in my constituency. The package will also help KeyMed, a big medical supplier in Southend that employs more than 600 people.

Using the LIBOR fine for charities and good works is really nifty, in that it focuses on what we should be focusing on. Most people will not even know what LIBOR stands for—why should they?—but when excesses in the City are identified, they should be punished. It is great that the LIBOR fine will be paid to charities and to organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which operates on the foreshore in Southend as well as at the end of the longest pleasure pier in the world. The scouting movement will also receive some of that money, which is to be welcomed.

The companies around London Southend airport will welcome the Budget, and I look forward to reviewing it with them in the next few weeks when the Secretary of State for Transport comes to launch the new, improved terminal. The change to air passenger duty for flights to the Caribbean has long been called for and an inequity has now been resolved. Hats off to the Chancellor for finally sorting that one out.

The Chancellor talked of the city deal, from which Southend has benefited. On savers, it is wonderful that we are now able to trust people on annuities. The ISA merger is superb as it will allow people to save more and to move from equities to cash in later life, not just with new ISAs, but with the old ones. I noticed that on the Treasury website it is referred to as NISA rather than ISA. I hope we are not trying to rebrand for the sake of it, as natty as NISA sounds. The savings tax for people on low incomes, taking them out at £5,000 is excellent. Overall, there is something for everyone in this Budget and I am sure the good people of Rochford and Southend East will be very happy with it.

Autumn Statement

James Duddridge Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The whole purpose of universal credit is to remove the disincentives to work that exist in our current welfare system, driven both by the complexity of all the different benefits and by the couple penalty for whose removal my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has campaigned for many years. He is removing it—or, at any rate, heading in the direction of removing it—through universal credit, but there may be more than we can do, and I shall be happy to look into that.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Sadly, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) could not be with us today to hear about economic growth, but he did leave us the gift that is the shadow Chancellor. Given that everyone is saying that the shadow Chancellor had a bit of a nightmare today, is this not an opportunity to give him a break and to leave him in place rather than his being sacked, so that he continues to serve as a reminder of the economic failure in which the last Labour Government landed us?

[Mr Osborne]

The shadow Chancellor is one of the many people whom I want to keep in his job.