Diverted Profits Tax

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for giving us the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is always a pleasure to speak on such issues. It is nice to see the shadow Minister in her place. More importantly, it is nice to see the Minister in her place, because we have conversed and supported each other in many debates in Westminster Hall. It is nice to see her back in a ministerial position. I look forward to her response, which will be worth listening to.

The public anger has been immense over this issue. If there is one thing that nyarks people, to use an Ulster Scotsism, in my part of this country, it is the issue of tax avoidance—big companies making money and not making the contribution they should.

We welcome the Chancellor’s introduction of the new tax; we are pleased to see it. Many of the companies that hit the headlines back in 2012—they are not all UK-owned—have been in and out of the news ever since, which infuriates people. The Chancellor said that this new legislation will bring in £1 billion over five years, although others have said that they are not sure whether it is workable. When the Minister replies, will she give us an idea of how it will work and how we can make those companies accountable?

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the proposed legislation is welcome, we need to take account of what was said earlier? The director of the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation said:

“The fundamental problem is the structure of the international tax system”.

In addition to this legislation, we need international co-ordination to prevent people from brass plating.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague is on the button. Although it is good that we have the legislative change, we need co-operation among countries across the world so we can work together to address this issue.

This new legislation aims to ensure that people pay tax. There are various safeguards that, as my hon. Friend and colleague said, we need to see in place. We need to work better with other countries across the world. We also need to ensure that businesses that are pursued wrongly are not affected.

The legislation is for larger companies. It concerns what is referred to as artificially diverted profits, and that is exactly what it is. Foreign companies must have UK sales of at least £10 million, and if the UK activity would be considered a small or medium-sized company for UK accounting purposes, this new law does not apply, so there are some important concessions.

Finally, the tax provision examines whether UK costs have been inflated or UK sales have been reduced, which is another way of artificially diverting the figures. We must look at whether there is a tax mismatch between what seems likely should have been reported in the UK and what is reported in a foreign company. We need clarification on those issues from the Minister. The hon. Member for Amber Valley set the scene well in his introduction.

Although £10 million might seem like a lot of money, I will put it in perspective. In 2011, Starbucks, a global company that has come into disrepute again for not paying any tax—its coffee is lovely but there is an issue to address elsewhere—made £398 million in UK sales alone. I used the word “nyark” earlier. It nyarks us greatly that companies can make that much turnover and not pay a considerable amount of tax.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that doing nothing is not acceptable? However, as questions have been asked about the new scheme that the Chancellor spoke about, is it not best that we look at those questions and ensure that the legislation that is being introduced will tackle the problem we face?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to have legislation in place that enables us to oversee the loopholes that have been outlined. We are all hoping that the Minister will tell us how it will work in her response. I hope she will address the questions that have been asked.

Starbucks employs 8,500 people in the UK, so it makes a contribution in employment, wages and associated taxes, but it pays no corporation tax. Amazon, another global company, employs 15,000 staff in the UK and reported sales of £3.35 billion in 2011, as well as profits of £74 million, but it paid only £1.8 million in corporation tax. That annoys me greatly. Google, one of our favourite search engines, made £396 million in 2011 and paid only £6 million in corporation tax. Some of the companies have of course been stung into making tax contributions, although those have been minimal.

An article by Joseph Brothers that I read last month in the magazine Tax Notes International sums up the subject of the earlier intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on brass plating. Brothers suggested that Apple, reacting to a threat by the Irish Government to shut down one of their lucrative, corporate-friendly, tax-avoiding laws, would switch strategies to escape taxes in Ireland. He wrote that the so-called “Double Irish” might soon be replaced by a new “Bermuda Triangle”: instead of ships and planes mysteriously disappearing in it, it would be a triangle of tax treaties between Ireland, the Netherlands and Bermuda, exploiting rules that do not quite align and creating the space for profits to vanish, at least to the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service auditors.

If that strategy works, Google and others are likely to follow suit. The outcome could well be that the big corporate tax dodgers achieve what a noted tax lawyer calls “stateless income”: siphoning profit out of high-tax countries in Europe, Japan and North America and moving it around under tax treaties until it is not subject to any tax, because any profits are being reported in a non-existent country called “nowhere”. That is the bottom line of what could happen if our legislation is not correct and if the loopholes, disparities and open questions are not dealt with.

I am using those three companies as examples, but there are many others. Unfortunately, a common trend is filtering down through to a large number of companies. At the end of the day, we must remember that UK-based companies pay corporation tax on their taxable profits wherever those are made. It is only right, therefore, that foreign companies pay tax in the UK on profits made in this country. We must make it clear that the UK is not a country to come to for freeloading. Those are the issues.

Many British-based global companies do pay their taxes. They are concerned that the new legislation might give HMRC too much discretion. Furthermore, as the head of the tax policy unit of KPMG here in the UK noted in the company’s latest annual tax competitiveness survey, companies value “stability” and “simplicity”, but unfortunately, one criticism of the proposed legislation is that it does not offer simplicity. Many questions therefore need to be answered and much transparency applied to ensure that the legislation, while welcome—we have to take a step in the right direction—can work in practice.

The aims of the legislation are admirable as well as necessary. In a recent poll of more than 500 accounting and small business professionals, taken immediately after the Chancellor’s autumn statement, 56% of respondents said that the most significant tax announcement in the speech was the one about the diverted profits tax. Many, perhaps all of us—if not the companies trying to avoid the measure—welcome it, but we need to be sure that everything is in place.

Will the Minister tell us about another issue raised by the hon. Member for Amber Valley: the IT equipment necessary to ensure that expertise is in place? There is also the question of the resourcing of moneys. I understand that the initial set-up will cost £2.3 million in staffing for the first year and £1 million per year thereafter. At a time of HMRC cuts, of which we are all aware in every area, perhaps the Minister will indicate whether provision has been made for the IT equipment and the necessary staffing resources to ensure implementation.

It is of course important to remember that big businesses are always welcome in the UK and, as other Members have said, we do not intend to turn any away. We want companies to be based in the United Kingdom, but we, like everyone else, want them to make their contribution to the tax system. It is always extremely pleasing to hear that another company has made the decision to expand in the UK, and we are seeing a lot of that at the moment in Belfast. It is good to have those companies providing employment opportunities and taxes, and spending money so that our economy in Northern Ireland grows. That is super news for local people, local business and the local economy. It is also vital, however, that those big companies pay their way, otherwise it is not so lucrative after all for local businesses, people and economies. Instead, the money will simply stay in the hands of the global giants.

Will the Minister say what steps the Government will take to deal with the tax havens in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? Will we have some influence there, or access to information? Gone are the days when money was hidden under the mattress, the bed or the floorboards; people now put it overseas in tax havens. Will the Minister give some indication of the direction of policy?

[Nigel Mills]

I am keen to check the view of the hon. Gentleman’s party. In the event that Northern Ireland chooses to reduce its corporation tax rate, does he agree that Northern Ireland should not use that lower rate to attract artificial income into Belfast, as the Irish did in the Republic? The lower rate should be for the purposes of getting real jobs and real substance into Belfast, instead of dragging profit out of the UK mainland, perhaps through the financing of intellectual property companies or other ways of artificially moving tax.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman will find that my party, through the Northern Ireland Assembly and the First Minister, will hold an upstanding position in working the policy. We will not be developing into a tax haven. We want to see real jobs for real people on the ground. That is the way forward, and it is what we support.

We are pleased to have the Minister in her place today. Responsibility for answering our questions and for how this will work lies very much with her Department. We are committed to having the new legislation in place, I hope by 1 April. We want the big companies to be brought into line and made accountable for tax avoidance. We want the issue of the tax havens over which we have control to be dealt with, and for our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland to have the same opportunity. In addition, we have to look at the global picture, because although legislative change may take place in this country, what will really make it work is how we interact with other countries.

BMI Pension Fund Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to make a small contribution to the debate, Mr Sanders.

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for bringing this matter forward. He clearly set out the scene for us all. Hon. Members are here because our constituents have expressed concern. We are aware of people from Northern Ireland who are equally disadvantaged because of what has taken place. This debate is of the utmost importance, because it deals with people’s futures and livelihoods. These are the kinds of issues that Members of Parliament ought to deliberate upon.

In 2012, the parent group of British Airways and Iberia, International Airlines Group, struck a deal with Lufthansa, the then parent group of BMI, to buy the company. The attraction of BMI lay in its control of 9% of the valuable slots at London Heathrow. That sets the scene. The matter then became difficult, and BMI employees found themselves disadvantaged. Originally, they thought the deal was a good one, but it clearly turned out not to be.

The deal saw former BMI staff lose £177 million from their pensions, because it was structured so that IAG could avoid taking on BMI’s final salary pension scheme, which was placed into the Pension Protection Fund. I am deeply disappointed that the Pension Protection Fund has not been able to act strongly on behalf of BMI staff. When the Minister replies, she may wish to address that issue.

That arrangement meant that about 3,700 BMI staff and pilots lost at least 10% of their savings, as the PPF pays only 90% of a pension, up to a maximum of £27,000 a year. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of just one person, which shows the magnitude of the figures.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Perhaps I should explain that my understanding is that the Lufthansa compensation was graduated in such a way that those with the biggest pension losses got the least compensation. At the top end, only 10% or 20% of the losses were compensated for, and the rest was lost entirely. Those with long service suffered the worst.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which helps to clarify the matter.

As a good-will gesture, Lufthansa agreed to pay £84 million in compensation, which staff were offered as a one-off cash payment or which could be added to a defined contribution pension scheme. However, staff were then informed that any cash payments would be taxed. Clearly, there is an issue there. Lufthansa was also advised that it would not have to pay national insurance on cash payments, even though members of the BMI pension scheme were not direct employees of the German airline.

Understandably, that has caused a lot of frustration among former BMI employees. As far as they are concerned, they worked for x years and paid x into a pension scheme, which they are now entitled to, but because of dealings between the parent companies, they are now to lose out. We are here for justice and fair play for our constituents and for those who have been disadvantaged.

At the time, BALPA, the pilot’s union, said:

“Pilots in bmi are rightly outraged that their pensions are to be significantly reduced. These pilots have invested their careers in this airline, and a large proportion of their salary in its pension scheme.”

That is how its members felt, and they still feel that way, because the issue has not been sorted out.

The BMI Pensions Action Group was set up to seek justice for employees who were disadvantaged by the company buy-over. When the possibility of BMI’s sale first arose in autumn 2011, BALPA sought assurances, and reassuring noises were made by Lufthansa, which said that there was nothing to worry about, and the UK Pensions Regulator said it had powers to hold companies to account. Members of the scheme received no communications after December 2011, when Lufthansa said it was going to retain the pension obligation. Those in the scheme were led to believe that they were okay, but they clearly were not.

[Mr McKenzie]

The hon. Gentleman is making some good points. I am sure he will agree that the people involved have been shabbily treated. Here we see another example of people being asked to prepare for their retirement and old age, but when they near that point, their pension is ripped from their grasp. Perhaps the Minister could take the issue away—we are talking about 4,000 people, not 4 million—and look again at the issue of taxation being applied to what compensation people have received.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is clear. It is disgraceful that those whom we represent have been treated shabbily, to use his terminology. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), I ask the Minister to review the situation, because we are talking about 4,000 employees. The Government did that for Equitable Life, even though they said they could not. Members asked in Westminster Hall for that to happen—every one of us here today was probably here for Equitable Life’s members, and we are here today for the 4,000 BMI workers who have been disadvantaged.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Minister might be nervous about how much we are asking to be given away, and it might assist her if I say that the 4,000 is the figure for all the scheme members, some of whom will have been below the Pension Protection Fund cap. All the members have an interest, and they all deserve justice of course, but those who have been particularly badly hit are relatively few in number.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister has been listening intently to Members’ interventions, and we know that she takes all the detail on board and responds. We look forward to her response, and we hope we can get answers to the questions we are asking. If we do, that would be good news.

The Sunday Telegraph said BMI pensioners are facing a “double whammy”. They have not only lost out on payments, but now face tax and national insurance payments on what should be straightforward compensation. That is completely unacceptable, and I am glad that we have the opportunity today to say that on behalf of our constituents and those who have contacted us.

We are dealing with people’s livelihoods in what are difficult financial times. As the hon. Gentleman suggested in his intervention, the figures involved are not substantial financially, but they have an impact on a great many people. In some way, these 4,000 people are disadvantaged. They have conscientiously paid into a pension scheme, only to be told that they will not get as much as they were initially promised or what they are due. To top it off, when they were actually offered cash payments, they were told those would be subject to tax. They were almost dragged into the system, but they then found themselves in a difficult position. We must work with the unions to resolve these issues, because these people are being treated unjustly. There are also implications for other pension schemes.

In conclusion, I implore the Minister to take on board the comments made by the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken and those who will speak later. On behalf of my constituents and other constituents in Northern Ireland, I ask the Minister to review the situation and give scheme members the moneys they should be getting. That is what justice cries for, and that is what we wish to see.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (in the Chair)]

I call Graeme Morrice.

Barnett Formula

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Iain Stewart]

There certainly is that perception. Part of my motivation for securing the debate was to address such issues so that we can have a more informed debate on the fiscal relationship principally between Scotland and England. I am conscious that Members from Wales and Northern Ireland are in the Chamber as well. My comments will be principally about Scotland and England, but the arguments also apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. As I said, there is much ill-informed comment and misunderstanding about what the Barnett formula is and does and that is why I wanted to have this debate.

As well as being misunderstood, the Barnett formula is much maligned. Contradictory simultaneous comments are made that it both penalises Scotland and is too generous to Scotland, but both of those cannot be right. I am reminded of a comment that Lord Foulkes made when he was a Scotland Office Minister about a decade ago:

“If the SNP think that Barnett is too mean and the English Tories think that it is too generous, most sensible people would think that it is just about right”.

For many years, reform of the Barnett formula has been parked in the “too difficult” box.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland’s case the Barnett formula is just right. It recognises the need to keep the balance of wealth, because in Northern Ireland our wages are lower and the products we buy in shops are more expensive. At the same time, if the current talks work out—I hope that they do—and corporation tax is devolved to Northern Ireland, that could be a poisoned chalice. However, Northern Ireland has already been able to set its air passenger duty for long-haul flights with the permission of the British Government.

[Iain Stewart]

As I said earlier, the purpose of the debate is not to say whether Barnett is right or wrong or whether it needs to be changed or not; it is just to help inform a more considered debate about the issues.

Free Cash Withdrawals

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We have similar problems in my constituency, where ATMs are not as available as they should be. I am sure that the Minister will be able to address the issue of how we can encourage banks and building societies to put in ATMs. Perhaps she can also consider raising the awareness of those who use credit cards for withdrawals and should be using debit cards instead. If some of these issues were addressed at this level, that would greatly assist in enabling people to get better access to cash withdrawals without charges.

[Charlotte Leslie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes an absolutely superb point about financial education and information, which could perhaps empower people to kick up a bit more of a stink about the fact that they are having to pay £1.85 to access their own cash. Often people are just getting on with it—life is pretty tough and they do not want to complain and kick up a fuss. Those people should not be having to pay this money. We should empower them to say “No, this isn’t right and we shouldn’t have to put up with it”. I hope that the Minister will address these points.

A lot of words are said in this place, but we need more than words. It is encouraging that action can be taken when Members raise matters and sleeves are rolled up, but I never promise anything before it is done. However, I do promise my constituents—this might be a slight beacon of hope for other people across the country who cannot access free ATMs when they should be able to—that I will do everything I possibly can to end the scandal of lack of access to their own cash in Lockleaze. I have every faith that the Government will do everything they can as well.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) on securing this debate on an incredibly important matter. She has presented her case very eloquently.

I assure the House that this Government are committed to helping ensure the most vulnerable people in society have access to the banking services they need. That is why we took action to tackle payday loans, placing a duty on the Financial Conduct Authority to impose a cost cap. The Treasury, as widely reported, has been in discussions with the banks on improving the minimum standards for basic bank accounts. Only a few weeks ago, I hosted a round-table meeting with senior executives from the UK’s major banks. As part of that discussion, I set industry the challenge of coming up with new and innovative ways in which ATMs can be used to offer a wider range of banking services to consumers. I look forward to hearing back from the banks later this month. One of the most fundamental banking services—the subject that my hon. Friend has raised—is the ability of customers to be able to withdraw their own money conveniently, and free, at ATMs.

Forty-four years ago, the Enfield town branch of Barclays bank opened the first ever automated cash machine in the world—another first for the British retail banking industry. Since then, the ATM sector in the UK has been in a state of constant progress. The number of cash machines has grown from 36,000 in 2001 to over 67,000 this year, making cash far more accessible to customers. The number of free-to-use ATMs is at an all-time high, and over 97% of all ATM cash withdrawals by UK cardholders are made free of charge. Pay-to-use machines now account for only 3% of the total volume of transactions.

It is important to recognise that, in areas with greater need for free-to-use ATMs, LINK—the network that connects the UK’s ATM machines—provides subsidies to ATM providers to allow them to offer services under its financial inclusion programme. The LINK scheme is unique in Europe: it allows banks and building societies to give their customers access to cash from any ATM across the UK, no matter which bank they hold an account with. That gives customers universal access to their cash without the need to walk into a bank. Across much of the rest of Europe, pay-to-use machines are the norm and the cost of withdrawing cash is not transparent. By contrast, as I have said, the vast majority of machines in the UK are free to use, and those that are not must be very transparent with their pricing, as per LINK rules, so ATM customers typically get a good deal in the UK.

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, however, some cash machines do charge customers for the withdrawal of cash. These machines are typically operated by independent, non-bank providers, which install ATMs in areas with a low footfall and that tend to be in rural or less well-off communities where banks feel it is not commercially viable to operate a free-to-use machine. The fees they charge need to be completely transparent prior to the customer withdrawing cash, and ensuring that the service is commercially viable is the reason for independent ATM machines charging those fees. If independent ATMs could not charge, they might withdraw entirely from these sites, which would risk leaving the rural and more vulnerable communities with reduced access to cash.

I completely understand, however, the concerns of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) regarding pay-to-use machines in less well-off communities. I am well aware that it is precisely in those disadvantaged communities that people most need affordable cash machines nearby without having to take public transport several miles to use one. Many hon. Members have made compelling cases for areas in their own constituencies. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has made representations to me in the past.

I am pleased to inform hon. Members that a programme of work is under way to address exactly that issue. LINK has developed the financial inclusion programme, which sets up free-to-use ATM machines in areas where they are most needed. The programme provides subsidies of £1 million per annum to ATM operators to allow them to operate commercially viable free-to-use ATMs. The cost of this subsidy is shared out among LINK members. Through the programme, 1,400 target areas, mainly in rural and less well-off places, have access to an industry-subsidised ATM. In the remaining difficult locations, such as areas with low population or those with a lack of suitable installation sites, LINK has launched specific, individual projects to address that and reports regularly to the Government on progress.

[Jim Shannon]

ATMs could be set up in post offices, because there are lots of them. There have been some discussions about this issue with the banks in Northern Ireland. Has the Minister given any consideration to setting up ATMs in post offices, where they would be accessible for people in rural communities?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that very good point. In fact, precisely one of the challenges I gave to the banks during my recent round table with them was to look at what more they could do to put ATMs in easy to access sites such as post offices and supermarkets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West is quite right to question the fairness of pay-to-use machines in less well-off areas. However, where customers feel that an area lacks a free-to-use ATM, LINK has made a commitment to assess that location for the suitability of establishing one. As the number of target sites reduces, LINK also has a programme of identifying new segments of consumers for whom there may be access issues. LINK is working with Age UK and Toynbee Hall on specific projects, such as the “Older old” and “Deprived inner-city housing estates” projects, which aim further to improve access to cash for those more vulnerable members of society.

My hon. Friend’s mentioned that Lockleaze in Bristol North West has just one pay-to-use cash machine for 10,000 people. I have looked into the case, and I agree that it is absolutely unacceptable. My officials have contacted LINK, and I am pleased to say that, as she pointed out, it has committed to bringing the area into the scope of its financial inclusion programme. LINK has offered to visit the area to understand any further issues that her constituents are facing in accessing cash and locating free-to-use ATMs in the area.

In conclusion, I believe that the ATM sector is currently working well for consumers. The number of pay-to-use machines is low—only 3% of transactions are made from those ATMs—and the availability of free-to-use machines continues to rise. LINK membership rules offer consumer protection, particularly with regard to transparency of fees. The industry is taking action. For communities that have a greater need for free-to-use machines, LINK is setting them up in many places, and it is looking at how it can help segments of society that currently have difficulties.

I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and for bringing it to the attention of the House. I assure her that the Government and I will stay closely involved in this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

The Economy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to say a few words in this debate, which I thank the Opposition for initiating.

There are many good things to say about the economy and job creation, but as the motion points out, there remain issues with living standards and living costs, and despite the many job opportunities, which are good news, we need to see more money in people’s pockets. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment are responsible for the economy in Northern Ireland. We have seen growth in the agri-food, pharmaceutical and aerospace industries —in my constituency, Shorts Bombardier provides continual job opportunities—and in the software and medical device industries. The pharmaceuticals company T.G. Eakin, in Comber, has created more jobs in my constituency and has bought factories on the mainland as well.

In addition, the 2014 knowledge economic index has grown by 33% in the past three years, so there are lots of good things happening. However, we have not seen the money in people’s pockets, and that is what the motion is about. Although lots of progress has been made, certain things still need to be done. Here, I am thinking of Arlene Foster’s Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Citibank has announced 600 new jobs in its Belfast office. PriceWaterhouseCoopers has announced 807 new jobs. Concentrix has announced 1,000 new jobs. Youth unemployment across the UK and in my constituency has continued to fall. These are all good points, and the Government deserve credit for what they have done.

Young graduates are gaining employment in places where they previously might not have. Indeed, that is happening just this week—the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in my constituency fell by 260. It is all good news. However, that money is not getting to those on the minimum wage or restricted hours.

Child care is important to the performance of the economy. The motion before us refers to child care for working parents. It is an issue that affects every working parent, and one we must try to address.

We had a housing and building boom in Northern Ireland. It went extremely well at first, but when the crash came, we felt the pain dramatically. Things are returning to some normality, however, with job opportunities coming through, particularly in the construction industry, which has helped those who lost jobs over the years. At long last, the banks are starting to lend a wee bit of money again, and perhaps an indicator of an economy on the turn is the number of houses coming up for sale. We have competitive prices—the average house price in Northern Ireland is £141,000. Young people in my constituency can buy a house—a good three-bedroom house, too—for between £105,000 and £189,000. The opportunities are there, but people need job security and a decent wage. In most cases, families need two wages coming in.

When we fly, the aircraft seats on which we sit are often made by a firm in Kilkeel; and people driving within or around the outskirts of London are likely to be doing so on stone from Ballystockart and Carryduff, in my constituency. That is a fact. We have 100 international investors in Northern Ireland in the ICT sector. This is all good news, as are the creative industries that have highlighted Northern Ireland on the world stage over the last year.

What we need to see is more money going into people’s pockets to ensure that they have enough to live on and can gain higher living standards. We want people to be given the opportunity to work more hours, the minimum wage to go up, and greater confidence to be created in the economy. We welcome what has been done, but we want more to be done to help our young people.

UK Acorn Finance (Mortgages)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, they did, and I want to say a brief word about that towards the conclusion of my remarks. At least 44 cases were reported to the Avon and Somerset police, who unfortunately, took very little interest in what was going on—the chief executive of Avon and Somerset police is an ex-partner of Burges Salmon, by the way, so that is another interesting piece of information. Peter Williams was at one time a partner in Burges Salmon, as was John Smith, the chief executive of Avon and Somerset police, who was appointed in 2009. Avon and Somerset police describe themselves on their website as long-standing clients of Burges Salmon. That article also appears on Burges Salmon’s website.

All known complaints to the police and those handling this matter remain unanswered, and I have to ask why. Interestingly enough, they said that they could not find any criminal behaviour, but a detective constable, Niki White, of Avon and Somerset police came up to attend the repossession hearing in the Williamses’ case. Why exactly I do not know. On the one hand she was pretending to give some succour or comfort to the Williamses that the police were doing something, but on the other hand a letter from the manager of the financial investigation and economic crime section of the police to the solicitors acting on behalf of the perpetrators says:

“In your letter dated 16^th August 2013, you have questioned DC White’s attendance at Court on the 7^th August 2013. Her attendance on that day was to ensure that the Court understood the extent of the Police involvement and were not misled into believing that a criminal investigation was already underway.”

That was despite the police at the same time telling the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) that an investigation was under way and that it was an in-depth investigation. But interestingly, a couple of months after that letter, they say that

“we have been in discussion with other regulatory agencies. The purpose of this was to look at whether there are…other opportunities to address the situation or to influence regulation of this kind of activity in the future.”

They say that unfortunately they have not been able to progress it further. So they have concerns both on the criminal side, it seems to me, and, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) says, on the regulatory side, which I am sure we all share.

However, Avon and Somerset police have consistently blamed the Serious Fraud Office for not opening an investigation. That is ironic, because the police themselves have refused to open an investigation, although they have said to at least one Member of Parliament that they have done so. They have also tried to block Dyfed Powys police in Wales from investigating. I believe that something is amiss in Avon and Somerset police. As I have said, John Smith, the chief executive, is now writing to complainants and making decisions, but not mentioning the fact that he used to be a partner in one of the firms that is, or should be, in the firing line.

Let me say a word about Mr Desmond Phillips. Again, this touches on the important point that the hon. Lady made about regulation. In 1975, at the age of 22, Mr Phillips was made bankrupt. In 1976, he was convicted of theft at Shepton Mallet magistrates court. In 1987, his timber and haulage business collapsed, leaving creditors with a loss of £300,000. In 1991, Phillips’s company brokering endowment policies collapsed. Many customers were farmers. Insurance companies claimed that they were owed £300,000 on commissions that had been paid out on policies that failed to materialise or were subsequently cancelled.

In 1992, Phillips underwent his second bankruptcy, owing £170,000. That was discharged in the late 1990s. In 1994, the BBC Radio 4 programme “Face the Facts” was the first programme on Phillips. In 2008, there was a judgment against Phillips at the High Court in Manchester for £250,000 and costs. That was subsequently paid, I believe. In 2010, there was an individual voluntary agreement in respect of all his debts. In 2011, Acorn subsidiary UK Country Capital collapsed, owing £17.3 million to Barclays bank. On 16 April 2014, “Face the Facts” described him as “The Country Rogue”.

Two bankruptcies, one IVA and 14 county court judgments have been recorded against Mr Phillips and, believe it or not, a couple of years ago his licence to lend was renewed by the regulatory authority. That is quite incredible. I have documentation with me to show that Clive Maxwell, chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading, said that he was a fit and proper person to be lending money. I find that utterly incredible and I am sure that the Minister, in due course, will want to consider that aspect. In fact, Phillips’s licence was renewed in May 2012, so that was after most of the bad things that had happened and certainly after what had happened in the case of the Williamses.

I have said that I cannot understand why Avon and Somerset police have not researched this matter properly. I have myself dealt with the Serious Fraud Office and the Attorney-General and have met His Honour Judge Geoffrey Rivlin, the senior adviser to the fraud office. I was told by the fraud office that it deals only with very large frauds. In my instance, it is for £1.5 million, but if we multiply that by anything between 30 and 50 constituents or Members of Parliament, it is a massive fraud. No one can deny that.

I have said that there is a dossier of 44 cases that alleges similar conduct in them all. An especially incriminating document was prepared by Mr Levy, a barrister who specialises in this area. It is entitled “Appointments under flawed security”. He questions why Acorn has persistently used the LPA receiver Mr Burd. The only possible explanation is that Lloyds bank was comfortable with the methods used, because it was lending on to Acorn, as we know, and it was turning a blind eye to all that was happening, in breach of any fiduciary understanding that I have ever come across anyway.

In case anyone thinks that I am just a conspiracy theorist, the following Members of Parliament, to my certain knowledge—I am sure that there plenty of others—are also involved in trying to deal with the matter: my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), for Brecon and Radnorshire, for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the right hon. Members for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David), for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) and for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). There is also a Member of the other place who is actively involved in trying to assist people whom he knows.

As I said, I have been in contact with Avon and Somerset police, North Wales police, the Attorney-General, the Serious Fraud Office, the regulators and His Honour Judge Geoffrey Rivlin, the chief adviser to the SFO. So far, very little has been achieved, and it is to my huge regret that that should be so.

The conclusion that I draw from this terribly unhappy affair is that even if the modus operandi of UK Acorn and the allied companies is not fraudulent—I believe that it is—they of course have been in flagrant breach of their fiduciary duties to the borrowers. What that means may be obvious, but I will explain it. There is a fiduciary duty on a lender to ensure that the borrower can sustain the payments under the mortgage; otherwise, it is a straightforward taking of his property. That is an obvious point, but in this case there have been instances in which there has been overvaluation of properties in order to make an advance that would not be sustainable on the business case. That is clear in virtually every case that I am aware of. I think there are elements that are criminal, and I hope that we will be able to shine a light on this behaviour, but even if I am wrong, there have been serious, repeated and consistent breaches of fiduciary duty.

I put to the Government the following points. I know that the Minister is in the Treasury, not the Home Office, but will she please pass some of this information on to her colleagues in the Home Office? I am sure that she will. I ask the Avon and Somerset police to come clean as to why they are not properly investigating or, alternatively, to say that they will now investigate thoroughly these very, very serious complaints. They are complaints that have ruined the lives of, to my knowledge, 44 or 45 families. I am sure that Members of Parliament will know of many other people who were affected, and there will be others who have not complained. There is even a woman who has completely lost her mind and is in prison as a direct result of the situation. I could name her, but I do not want to embarrass her. She is contact with me, and she is still in prison.

There are others who have lost absolutely everything. They have the shirt on their back, and that is about it. In the meantime, Desmond Phillips is still lending money recklessly and making huge amounts of money against the assets of innocent people whom he has duped. I would ask also that the Avon and Somerset police fully assist the Serious Fraud Office to undertake its work. I believe that we are talking about a massive fraud, in which the SFO, if it has any purpose at all, should be involved. I have been trying to persuade Sir David Green to get involved, and I do not know whether the problem is one of resource, or what it is. To my way of thinking, if we send the SFO one file that shows underhand behaviour, the SFO should consider it. We have sent 36 files to the SFO, all of which show similar, if not identical, MOs, which suggests to me that something is really amiss.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate. I had some constituents to see and I could not get down in time. I know of a number of families who had difficulties financially and who were referred to UK Acorn Finance Ltd for help. The company took advantage of their circumstances. Does the right hon. Gentleman now feel that it is time for Government to regulate the company? The regulation of loan companies is in the news today, and that company must be regulated as well.

[Mr Llwyd]

Absolutely, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made that point earlier. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made that point well, and I am sure that the Minister heard it. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman also had constituents who were affected, but the case is evidently familiar to even more Members than the large number whose names I read out. I am sure that the Minister will have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

There is a need, in my view, immediately to withdraw Mr Phillips’s licence to work in the financial industry and, crucially, to consider whether the regulatory authorities have done their job well, or at all. There is an obvious rhetorical answer to that question. I would also like to see the investigation and urgent consideration of serious and deep breaches of fiduciary duty. I believe that we owe it to our constituents, many of whom have lost everything they had—their income, their livelihood, their homes, their heirlooms, their livestock and the roof above their heads. My constituents Mr and Mrs Williams believed, perhaps naively, that Phillips and UK Acorn Finance Ltd were on their side. They were clearly wrong, and they have paid an extremely heavy price. To deny them redress is wrong and, in my view, totally unacceptable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I agree with him. He may be interested to know that the Government will today lay the draft regulations for converting civil partnerships to marriage. The Government previously said that the cost of conversion would be calculated on a cost recovery basis, and that is correct. We had indicated about £100, but I am happy to say that, in almost all cases, the cost will be £45. It would be unfair to charge couples who were in civil partnerships before same sex marriage was available, so I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed to waive the conversion fee for one year from 10 December.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Tourism is important to my constituency of Strangford. It definitely brings jobs and opportunities, as promoted by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Will the Minister consider joint tourism promotions with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board so that we can benefit from tourism throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Grant]

I will consider all good ideas and sensible suggestions to promote tourism in this country, and I am happy to have a chat with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, VisitBritain and VisitEngland do a good job in promoting the regions and the nations.

Consumer Rights Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

It is fascinating finally to come to the end of consideration of the Bill in this Chamber.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand to be corrected, but I thought that those who wanted to speak on Third Reading did so before the shadow spokesperson. Am I wrong?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

You are wrong, yes. The Minister opens Third Reading, and the Opposition Front Bencher responds; we then hear from other participants. If we have enough time, and it is relevant to do so, we then hear the wind-ups. Do not worry—I will not forget you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is passionate about the subject she has just addressed. I hope the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), will not be disappointed with my contribution. I want to put on record some important issues.

The Minister has outlined very well the issues that the Bill tries to address, but I and other Members still have concerns. I am particularly concerned about the issue of debt advice. There are many debt organisations in my constituency. Citizens Advice, Debt Advice NI and Christians Against Poverty are just three groups that give advice—they do not lend money—on the problems people face when they borrow money and build up debts that they are unable to pay.

The Consumer Rights Bill should be just that—legislation that protects consumers. Does the Bill do so entirely? Some of us feel that it might have done more, and we would be much more relaxed about it if it had done more.

The regulation of loan companies, which Members have referred to, is a very complex matter. We are all aware of the story about a lady who borrowed a couple of thousand pounds from a loan company, which developed into a six-figure sum over a number of transactions. She found herself in a very difficult position, and she then had her house repossessed. That may be an extreme example, but it illustrates our concerns.

I very much welcome the Government’s commitment on the territorial extent and application of the Bill. I want to comment on part 3, which does not extend the Sunday Trading Act 1994 to Scotland and Northern Ireland, for example. The decision in relation to that will clearly lie with the Northern Ireland Assembly. I must say that that is good news for the people of Northern Ireland who attend church, but have to work on Sundays or might potentially have to do so. Any decision will lie with the Assembly, which is good news.

I wholeheartedly concur with the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Congleton about the controversial technological changes referred to in new clause 31 in relation to three-parent children. I am concerned that there was no opportunity to debate that on the Floor of the House, because I certainly wanted to speak about it, as did other hon. Members. I suggest that it seems very dangerous to go ahead with such a change, as has been indicated, without any consensus of support or a majority in its favour. I must put on the record that I am very concerned about the numbers of ladies who have such worries. Some 558 people responded by saying that they did not want the change. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill has addressed many of the issues about which we have concerns, such as the right to the repair or replacement of goods. I commend the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on the good work that he has done on the Bill. He fought very valiantly and got the changes that he had hoped for in relation to electrical goods. I am tremendously pleased to see in the Bill what he and many other hon. Members wanted it to include.

If the Minister cannot respond on this point tonight, perhaps she will come back to me at some time, but I do not yet see powers for people who take out holiday insurance and need consumer protection—for example, those who, having booked a flight, find that they have to cancel it, whether for health or whatever reason—but cannot get a reimbursement. I had hoped that the Bill might give those people more protection, but I am not sure that it yet does so.

I welcome many of the things in the Bill, as well as some of the things in it about which we are not entirely happy. None the less, I congratulate all hon. Members on their contributions to the Bill, and on their ability to bring to the Floor of the House provisions that can make a change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and for the contribution his family made to the great war—as did, obviously, many other families, but especially, as he highlighted, people of ethnic minority backgrounds. He has made an important point, and I will certainly look at that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Commonwealth contribution to the first world war was significant. In particular, one in 10 people who served came from undivided India. In Northern Ireland we have a very large Indian community. What discussions has the Minister had with the bodies responsible in Northern Ireland to ensure that the community’s significant contribution is commemorated?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will know that more than 70,000 soldiers from the Indian army made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of Britain in the great war. With respect to Northern Ireland, I have not had any discussions so far in my new role, but I will certainly raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the past, both here and in Westminster Hall, I have spoken frequently about issues such as child poverty, food poverty, benefits for single parents, social exclusion and other social problems. On this occasion, I want to express my support, and that of my party, for the married couple’s transferable tax allowance. We gave a manifesto commitment to support it in our Parliament, and we are pleased to be able to support it today as well.

I respect the opinions of Labour Members, and I do not wish to be divisive. I want always to be respectful to Members whose opinions may differ from mine. However, I have a hard-held opinion about this particular issue. I want to help everyone, but I think it is time that married couples had an opportunity to see some benefit from legislative change. Those who support the recognition of marriage in the tax system have waited a long time for the Government to introduce this policy. I expected it to be introduced a long time ago, in view of the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for what was a headline manifesto commitment, but I am very pleased that, at long last, it is being introduced now.

We have heard some excellent speeches from Members on both sides of the House. I particularly commend the way in which the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) set the scene. I recall a debate in the House about two years ago to which the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I contributed. That was one of my early introductions to the cut and thrust of politics here. Most of the Members surrounding me opposed what I was saying, but I held fast to my opinion, and I am very pleased to be able to express it again today.

Let me begin by highlighting some of the powerful public policy benefits of marriage. I shall then explain why I consider clause 11 to be an appropriate public policy response, albeit rather modest—I should have liked to see more.

[Alison Seabeck]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is talking a great deal of common sense. Marriage is indeed something to which most people aspire. Let us be honest: it is a great institution. However—I think he was starting to make this point just now—the Bill is neither one thing nor another. It does not really achieve what most Government Members want, and it certainly does not deal with the concerns of Opposition Members. I should welcome his views on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

As ever, the hon. Lady has made a very sensible intervention.

It is not the financial aspect of the clause that will be the convincing factor for those who wish to proceed with it. Personally, I see it as a recognition of those who are in a marital relationship, which is why I support it. Marriage is unquestionably a source of great benefit to adults, to children and to our communities in general: as others have said, there are extensive research findings to demonstrate that. Given the shortage of time, I shall highlight just some of the benefits of marriage to adult health, on the basis of evidence and statistics.

As has already been said today, the health gain from marriage may be equal to the benefit of giving up smoking. Of special interest to me, given the challenges presented by our ageing population, is the fact that marriage significantly limits hospital use. Those living with a spouse are less likely than others to enter an institution after the age of 60, because that person will be able to look after them and help them. For children, growing up with married parents is associated with better physical health in adulthood and increased longevity. There is a direct link between family breakdown—particularly separation from a biological parent—and future offending. I have not made those things up: they are facts, based on information that we have received.

Some Members have argued that marriage in itself is irrelevant, and that all the positive associations with it are driven by other factors, principally income. I must say that I find that argument particularly unconvincing. When one set of couples have thoughtfully embraced the cost of making an exclusive, lifelong commitment before the world, “forsaking all others, so help me God”—a commitment that is sealed in law—and another have just decided to move in together and see how it goes, is it any wonder that the first set of couples are likely to be, on average, more stable? That is not a reflection on those who cohabit, but it is a reflection of the statistics showing the commitment that we all make in a marital relationship.

Moreover, as others have noted, the Millennium Cohort Study has blown out of the water the idea that it all boils down to money. According to the study, the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. Finance is clearly not the motivator. However, recognition of the marital relationship by the Government through the transferrable tax allowance strikes me as a constructive way forward.

On 25 July this year, the hon. Members for Darlington (Jenny Chapman)—who has now left the Chamber—and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) will enter the happy union of marriage here in the House of Commons. Let me take this opportunity to wish them well, as others have already. It is good to know that marriage is alive and well in the House.

My concern is not with trying to persuade people to marry, but the evidence suggests that people who want to marry are not doing so because it is not an accessible option. As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said in his marriage week speech in 2011,

“When asked about their aspirations, young people are very clear: three quarters of those under 35 who are currently in cohabiting relationships want to get married, and some 90% of young people aspire to marriage”.

Those are very clear statistics. The Secretary of State continued:

“So perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is this: if people from the youngest age aspire to make such a commitment in their lives, what stops them doing so?

Government cannot and should not try to lecture people or push them on this matter, but it is quite legitimate to ensure people have the opportunity to achieve their aspirations.”

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I think that we have a unanimous view about the importance of marriage. Does he feel that the Government are communicating the details of the policy clearly enough for the young people about whom he is talking to understand whether it affects them or not? Many of them—for example, couples earning the minimum wage—will not be affected by it.

[Jim Shannon]

I cannot comment on the technical figures—no doubt the Minister will say something about them when he sums up the debate—but I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. The Government clearly have much to do. Indeed, we all have much to do in putting forward our views, but let us hope that those who have an opportunity to enter into a marital relationship will be able to benefit financially as well.

Although 90% of young people aspire to marry, marriage rates are at an all-time low, while cohabitation rates are rising. The reason why that matters can be expressed in many ways, but I shall do so by employing language that the Treasury understands. The cost of family breakdown has risen to some £44 billion per annum, and crucially, according to the Centre for Social Justice, of every £7 spent on family breakdown amongst young families, £1 is spent on divorce, £4 is spent on unmarried dual-registered parents who separate, and £2 is spent on sole registered parents.

In this context it is absolutely imperative that the state does not place any unnecessary obstacles in the way of those who wish to marry, yet that is exactly what we do on many occasions. Since 2000 we have had a tax system that is very much in the minority internationally, as the hon. Member for Peterborough said. Just over a fifth of people in the OECD area live in countries that do not recognise marriage or have some kind of couple allowance. The vast majority of those people live in just two countries: the UK and Mexico. Research by Pearson and Binder published by the public policy charity CARE demonstrates that in this context the tax burden on a one-earner married couple with two children on average wage has been consistently much higher in this country than across the OECD on average. In 2012, the latest year for which there are comparable data, the tax burden on a UK one-earner married couple on average wage was 45% greater than the OECD average, up from 42% in 2011. Moreover this burden was a staggering 80.4% of that placed on a single person on the same wage while the comparable OECD figure was just 55%. Figures sometimes blind us to the issues, but these figures illustrate the issue of fairness and balance and show what the Government are trying to achieve through the legislative change before us.

In this context is it any wonder that rather than opting for marriage, couples are opting for other arrangements? Clause 11 will begin to put this right, but this is only a very limited, partially transferable allowance that, far from creating a level playing field, let alone a little nudge to opt for marriage, will instead only erode the incentive not to marry. Clause 11 is thus a hugely important first step; it is a foundation upon which we must build.

On 10 April 2010, when announcing the detail of the Conservative transferable allowance policy, which was then worth 11.6% of the personal allowance, the Prime Minister was clearly bothered that the package was not more generous. He indicated his wish to see more and, speaking on “Sky News”, he blamed the current fiscal constraints and said:

“Of course I want to go further and I am sure that over a Parliament we would be able to go further but this is a good first step.”

I believe this is a good first step. I am on record in my constituency as asking for this. I have done articles for my provincial press, supporting this option of the married transferable allowance. I believe today we have a chance to move towards that, and I hope this House will decide very positively and clearly on this.

It is clear that all we are going to get in this Parliament is a 10% transferable allowance. Many people will be watching to see the Prime Minister make good his commitment to go further in the next Parliament. Perhaps the Minister can confirm in his response in what ways the Government are committed to doing more in the next parliamentary term to introduce a fully transferable allowance. That must be the No. 1 income tax priority for the next Parliament.

[Mr Burrowes]

I very much welcome clause 11 and not the amendment in the name of the Opposition.

Before coming here I had an interview with children who are taking part in the BBC “Newsround” consideration of Prime Minister’s questions. I did not have an opportunity to ask them about the transferable allowance, but as they grow into adulthood I suspect they will look back on the proceedings here and think it rather odd that we are trying to put down dividing lines and divide along party lines on the basic issue of marriage being recognised in the tax system. They will think it rather odd that people are trying to pit one family relationship against another, when this is a very simple and moderate measure that is recognised across the world.