Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

John McDonnell Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I wanted to focus on the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) with regard to tax avoidance, but today’s theme is local government, and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) referred to the London borough of Hillingdon, and that prompts me to make a passing reference to that local authority, which I share with him. I do not recognise his depiction of its Conservative administration. In my constituency, Conservative control of that borough has created, through callousness and incompetence, the worst housing crisis since the second world war, with families living in overcrowded squalor, and hundreds now in bed and breakfasts, shunted around the country just to find a roof over their heads. The cuts in the planning department and the lack of enforcement on beds in sheds and so forth mean that some areas of my constituency are now beginning to look like a shanty town. The council is building on the green belt despite owning brownfield sites. That is because it is selling off those brownfield sites in my constituency in order to subsidise the development of facilities in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and in Ruislip and Northwood as well.

I also live in a local authority where social services and care services are perilously close to collapse and where staff are working in an environment of bullying and fear. The Conservative councillors who lead the council seem more interested in increasing their allowances than the interests of my constituents. I just make passing reference to the London borough of Hillingdon.

I shall turn now to the issue I wish to raise: tax evasion and avoidance. The Budget sets the target of raising £3.1 billion through tackling tax evasion and avoidance. The Government have identified a tax gap of £35 billion, which has remained almost static for the past few years, but one of the World Bank auditors has said it is nearer £100 billion, and the tax justice campaign and the Public and Commercial Services union, which represents the tax collectors themselves, has put it at £120 billion. So on the Government’s own figures, at best we are simply going to tackle, if successful, less than 10% of the tax gap, but more realistically less than 3%. That is a dismally low target.

In yesterday’s HMRC and Treasury document on tax avoidance and evasion, I welcome the statements around strict liability, naming and shaming, the toughening up of penalties and the tackling of serial avoiders, but it has taken five years of lobbying by the Tax Justice Network and others—and I pay tribute to Richard Murphy, Prem Sikka and John Christensen. It has also taken direct action by UK Uncut, media campaigns and public pressure to get the Government to act—in their last week. But it is not action—it is not deeds; it is further consultations. This is an appalling missed opportunity.

The right hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—who is not in his place, which I understand as it has been a long debate—referred to issues to do with accountancy firms, and I agree with him. The Government’s document of yesterday places heavy reliance on those agencies at paragraph 3.19:

“Today, the government also announced it is asking the regulatory bodies who police professional standards to take on a greater lead and responsibility in setting and enforcing clear professional standards around the facilitation and promotion of avoidance to protect the reputation of the tax and accountancy profession and to act for the greater public good.”

There is a level of either complicity or naivety here. I think this demonstrates corporate capture of this Government and the Treasury by the accountancy firms, finance houses of the City and corporate law firms.

The Government are now relying on these agencies once again to police themselves. On the corporate lawyers, the Law Society tax committee is populated by corporate lawyers representing firms promoting the tax avoidance schemes. On the accountancy professional bodies, the standards and policy committees comprise the representatives of the firms making billions of pounds from designing, promoting, selling and implementing tax avoidance schemes on an industrial scale, as the Public Accounts Committee said. I refer Members to Prem Sikka’s latest article. He points out that

“the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales was formed in 1880. Here we are in 2015, and not a single accountant or accountancy firm has ever been disciplined by the ICAEW even when the schemes marked by the Big Four firms have been declared to be unlawful by tax tribunal and courts.”

Then there is the question of who is going to prosecute these firms now that we are going to introduce more criminal legislation against them. Will it be the Serious Fraud Office? Its budget has fallen from £52 million in 2008 to £35 million now. It is hardly equipped to take on these mega-corporations. In fact it is now facing lawsuits for damages from botched investigations—from the Tchenguiz brothers—and is “utterly unfit” to investigate or enforce the legislation the Government are bringing forward.

The Crown Prosecution Service is “hardly visible” with regard to prosecution of big corporations, and HMRC staffing cuts have denied it the professional expertise needed. I will come back to the staffing cuts.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an improvement in the law if there was corporate liability for the criminal acts of individuals within companies? In other words, if someone behaves dishonestly on behalf of a company, the company itself should be liable. If that law were in place, as it is in the United States, it would help with prosecutions in this country for fraud and dishonesty.

[John McDonnell]

Exactly, and there is some movement on that in this document, but only yet another consultation that does not define whether individuals as well as corporations will be completely liable.

The Government sometimes have good intentions. We all supported on a cross-party basis the idea that if a company is prosecuted for tax avoidance, it should not then get a public contract. We all supported that in this House, but now, two years since it was introduced, not a single tax dodging entity, despite judgments by tax tribunals, has been barred from securing public contracts. What frustrates most of us in all parts of the House is precisely this non-implementation of legislation which we think could be effective and which we have all supported.

Another issue also came up. We supported the Government’s introduction of the general anti-abuse rule. We had been campaigning for years on it, and it came into effect on 1 July 2013. The Chancellor has referred to it on several occasions in various debates. The concept is good, but HMRC cannot go after offenders on its own because the Government have, in effect, put the tax avoiders in charge. HMRC needs permission from a panel, populated by the corporate tax avoiders, before it can implement the GAAR. The panel includes, for example, a partner from Baker Tilly, a firm of accountants associated with a tax-avoidance scheme used by Aberdeen Asset Management to dodge taxes on bonuses to employees, and so far the panel has not looked at a single case. It renders debates and legislative measures in this House totally irrelevant to the real world. The real issue is that no matter how many policy statements, reports and legislation we have, it is all rendered pointless if HMRC does not have the staff and resources to implement them.

I was critical of my own Government; I opposed the staffing cuts at HMRC then. In 2005, there were 92,000 staff at HMRC. By 2015, there were 62,000 and by next year there will be a planned 52,000. That is a 43% cut in the very tax collectors we rely on to chase the evaders and avoiders. For every pound spent on a member of staff at HMRC, £25 is brought back. That is not my figure, but the independent assessment. The Government have now closed all 281 local tax inquiry offices. They have brought in a centralised call system, which is struggling on every measure. HMRC’s management have gained a reputation across the civil service for belligerent incompetence, and that was displayed when the Public Accounts Committee attempted to hold them to account. Morale in HMRC is at an all-time low, which is testified to by the Government’s staff survey showing that it had the lowest level of employee engagement across all Government departments.

We have also seen, as a result of the leaked memos of four weeks ago, the HMRC management’s union-busting strategy. They have not only targeted and victimised PCS reps, but are trying to set up an alternative staff association to break the PCS. In my view, HMRC is not only not fit for purpose, but sinking. It is in need of basic reform if it is to live up to the expectations placed on it even by the report that the Treasury published yesterday. If we are really going to tackle tax avoidance and evasion and have any hope of closing the tax gap, we need a more effective, better staffed and better resourced HMRC. We need greater parliamentary accountability, which means: a specific Minister responsible for HMRC; and a separately established Select Committee to which it is accountable. We also need resources for organisations outside Government that can monitor it and respond to the detailed, complex Government consultations. Above all else, HMRC needs staff resourcing and the reversal of the staffing cuts on this scale that have neutered its operations. If we really want to tackle the tax gap, we need to ensure that it is properly staffed, that Parliament is in control and that there is proper accountability and monitoring throughout. In that way, we can tackle the tax gap, and we can start talking about the fairness of the wealth tax, the financial transaction tax and corporate tax reform. We need not so much a long-term economic plan as a long-term fair tax plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to put on the record my acknowledgment for all their years of service to their constituents of the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the right hon. Members for Havant (Mr Willetts), for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), the right hon. Members for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) and for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys).

[John McDonnell]

I apologise for intervening, but in my enthusiasm to attack the Government I failed to refer to the retirement of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), who has been an absolutely sterling colleague for me in Hillingdon and has served his constituents so well.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have heard some wonderful valedictory speeches, and I wish all those right hon. and hon. Members well in their future endeavours.

We also heard some very impassioned speeches from my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) told us about unemployment in the north-east, and said that there was more of a northern outhouse than a northern powerhouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) spoke about his local hospital having to declare a major incident, and about how the Budget has done nothing for the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) helpfully shared with the House excerpts from the 2010 Red Book. We should all remember his point that the Chancellor’s actions during the past five years have been worse than doing nothing at all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) talked about the proliferation of food banks and charity shops, which have increased in number in his constituency since this Tory-led Government came to power. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) talked about the north-east, rising inequality and the deep and growing divide between the north and the south. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) raised serious concerns about funding for health, which I will come on to, and the devastating cut of 24% in further education announced this week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) talked about the impact of stagnant wages and particularly about the poverty that affects her constituency more than any other part of the country. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) in relation to the challenges faced by her constituents in making ends meet, and with her very moving stories about overcrowding and the effects of the bedroom tax and escalating rents. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly talked about HMRC’s lack of action in tackling tax avoidance and evasion properly, and the 43% cut in the number of people working for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) spoke about the cuts to social care, and particularly the cuts to prison staff that have led to a very serious increase in the number of assaults.

I have to say that I found the Chancellor’s Budget speech curious. There were parts I could agree with, such as the devolution of business rates, although it is not clear why he stopped at Cambridge and Greater Manchester; there were parts that were audacious in the extreme, such as his recollection of his deficit reduction plan in 2010; and there were parts that made me wonder whether he and I inhabit the same country.

I was struck by the Chancellor’s assertion that households will be on average £900 better off compared with 2010, and that they will be more secure. It is almost as though he thinks that the very fact that he has decreed it means that it will be so. Should that fail to become the reality, he had a very handy new measure of living standards to fall back on. It is a flawed measure, because it includes income to universities and charities, but it is a measure all the same. Sadly for him—more sadly for families struggling to keep their heads above water—even his new cunningly crafted measure shows that living standards in the first quarter of 2015 have gone down, not up, compared with the first quarter of 2010.

That Budget measure and other more sensible ones demonstrate what we know to be true: it is harder now to make ends meet. Household incomes are down compared with 2010, as the IFS confirmed two weeks ago, and wages after inflation are down by more than £1,600 a year since 2010. I know that to be true because people tell me it all the time in my advice surgeries, in their e-mails and on the doorstep. The Chancellor may have decreed it, but, sadly, he has not made it so.

The welcome growth that we are finally witnessing in the UK economy has been a long time coming. With our economy still vulnerable, we warned in 2010 that the Chancellor’s decision to accelerate tax rises and spending cuts would hit confidence and choke off our economic recovery, and so it has proved. We have had the slowest recovery for 100 years. Growth is still lower than was forecast in 2010, and it is set to be slower this year and next year than it was last year. Productivity is down—UK output per hour has fallen to 17% below the rest of the G7, the largest gap since 1991—but the Chancellor did not once mention the word “productivity” during his speech. For working people, we have an economy in which too many workers suffer low pay or, worse, are on contracts with no guarantee of being paid at all.

Our economy may be growing, but it remains too unproductive, unbalanced and insecure. We needed a Budget that addressed those issues, and that established a proper British investment bank for small and medium-sized businesses and an independent national infrastructure commission, which would lead to a properly co-ordinated industrial strategy. The uplift on business rates awarded to Greater Manchester and Cambridge is welcome—it was Labour’s policy, after all—but why has the Chancellor stopped there? Why has he not gone further? Our plan is for more extensive devolution—£30 billion-worth—and for it to be countrywide, whether people choose to have an elected mayor or not. Every part of the country will benefit from Labour’s plans. For prosperity to be shared, it must be felt by the many, not the few.

The Tories seem hellbent on decimating the services relied on by the many. The NHS, also conspicuously absent from the Chancellor’s speech and already under real strain, will be an inevitable victim of his colossal programme of cuts. Be under no illusion: page 130 of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” makes it clear that the Chancellor’s proposed spending cuts for the next three years will be deeper than those that have been made in the past five years. Massive cuts will be made to policing, local government and defence budgets. In the end, those Departments will not be able to deliver the scale of cuts required, and the axe will inevitably fall on the health service.

Our NHS is in no fit state for a white-knuckle ride. Already, more than half of nurses say that their ward is dangerously understaffed. Waiting lists are at their highest for six years, and one in four people are waiting a week or more to see their GP. In the past 12 months, more than 1 million people have waited more than four hours in A and E. The Tory care cuts of more than £3 billion have been the root cause of the A and E crisis during this Parliament. If they are allowed to do the same in the next Parliament, it will entrench the crisis, not only in A and E, but across the whole NHS.

A Labour plan and Budget would look different. Our plan will deliver a rise in living standards for the many and the stronger growth that we need. It is a fairer plan. We will reverse the tax cut for millionaires, introduce a mansion tax to fund the NHS and abolish the bedroom tax. We will build a truly national recovery, stop exploitative zero-hours contracts, raise the minimum wage and cut tuition fees to £6,000. Labour has a plan to build at least 200,000 homes a year by 2020, creating up to 230,000 construction jobs. Our plan will restore the link between the prosperity of the nation and the prosperity of the individual, protect the NHS and get the deficit down. In our plan, when the country succeeds and grows, its people will too.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. When it comes to banking licences, politicians should perhaps not be directly involved; we have a regulator for that purpose. Ensuring a change of behaviour in our banks is important. We have all been appalled by this behaviour over the last few hours––for some of us, it has been longer. This occurred some years ago, at the same time as we saw banks acting recklessly in a number of ways. It is really important for the banking sector to get its house in order. We know that the reforms we have undertaken as a Government can play an important role in ensuring that happens.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Let me ask a simple question. Was Lord Green interviewed about these matters by HMRC officials or the Cabinet Secretary at any time?

[Mr Gauke]

I am not aware of whether interviews were held on Lord Green’s appointment, either as a lord or as a business adviser, under the previous Government.

Finance Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

That is simply not true. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Lady likes rich people—there are quite a few in her party, so let us hope she gets on well with them—but it is absolutely false to suggest that Conservatives have no interest in people who are out of tax altogether or who are on low incomes; we are desperately concerned that they should get better educational standards and have more opportunities so that they can get a job and then go on to get a better job. We wish them well, and we are very keen to work with all those in our constituencies so that they can take advantage of opportunities. We would like them to be on higher incomes. In the meantime, unlike the Government she supported, we have taken many more of those people out of tax altogether, because we think that those on an income of less than £10,000 a year should not have to pay tax. They will probably be receiving some benefit assistance.

Another point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood did not respond to was the fact that the latest figures show that inequality rose under the Labour Government but has actually fallen a bit under the coalition, mainly because we have taken an awful lot of people at the lower end of the income scale out of tax. We have a very progressive system: the income tax system now exempts anybody on less than £10,000 and has a 47% rate, if we take national insurance as well on the highest incomes; and the benefit system rightly gives a lot of money to people at the low end of the scale and should not give any money to people at the top end.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of assertions in his last few sentences. I wonder whether he has seen the report published this week by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which states that the cuts in child benefit and tax credits

“have typically created losses double the amount of tax allowance gain for working couples, and nearly four times the amount for working lone parents.”

I wonder whether he has seen the latest HMRC report, which states that the Gini coefficient started to rise significantly in 2012-13.

[Mr Redwood]

The figures I have been using refer to the whole coalition period and show a reduction in inequality, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome. I do not recognise his figures on the child tax changes. The overall effect of taking a lot of people out of tax has been a very positive impact on their net incomes, as we would hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Minister will respond just before 2.50 and we have four more speakers.

[John McDonnell]

I will be fairly brief.

Under the last Government, I moved amendments like the new clause on virtually every Finance Bill. It has always made me anxious when Governments resist the requirement to provide information. That is all that is sought in the new clause. It simply looks to ensure that the House is properly informed about the impact of a differential tax rate. For the life of me, I could not understand why such amendments were resisted by the last Government, and I cannot understand why the new clause is being resisted now.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

On the point about being informed, does the hon. Gentleman think it unwise that the Leader of the Opposition has already stated that he will increase the rate to 50p?

[John McDonnell]

I want openness and transparency. I would prefer people to put their cards on the table in the run-up to the general election, so that the electorate know where everyone stands. It would be invaluable for all parties in the House to have the information that is requested in the new clause, so that they could test it and see whether the hypothesis that has been put forward by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and others is accurate. I do not believe that it is.

This debate goes much wider than the 50p rate of income tax. Members need to wake up to that. A few months ago, the Mayor of London ordered water cannon in case there are more demonstrations and riots. There is a deep feeling of unease and a building anger in our community about inequality. People do not usually mobilise and go out on the streets in the depths of a recession. Let us look at what has happened elsewhere: people get angry, mobilise and go out on the streets when they feel that the country is coming out of recession, but they are not sharing in the benefits from the sacrifices that have been made. We have asked people in this country to make immense sacrifices.

We should look at the various reports that have come out. A few months ago the Oxfam report exposed the fact that for the first time more of the people who are in poverty are in work than out of work. More children are therefore growing up in poverty in working families than in non-working families. I think that that is a first in the history of this country. A survey by Save the Children showed that, as a result of poverty, a staggering number of parents are going without food so that their children can eat. It showed the number of children who have never had a winter coat because their parents are unable to afford one. All that is building up into a significant anger about the inequality in our society.

Taxation rates are therefore not just about the income that they raise; they are about tackling inequality. The right hon. Member for Wokingham said that this has been happening over a long period. We now live in a society that is more unequal than it has been since Victorian times. It is true that for a short period in this recession, the Gini coefficient went down for two years. However, according to HMRC figures, it started rising again in 2012-13. I think that that will provoke anger in our community. Politicians need to be aware of that anger. Unless we do something about it, it will be difficult to contain.

That is why Governments need to be seen to be addressing the appalling inequality in our society. One way of doing that is to redistribute wealth, as Governments ought to do. The new clause does not talk about the vast maldistribution of wealth in our society. One publication from the Treasury revealed:

“The top 10% of earners in Britain have salaries which are equal to more than the bottom 40% of earners”.

That is absolutely staggering, and that is just about earnings: in some FTSE 100 companies, the chief executive and the directors earn 166 times the average wage of the workers.

Taxation is about addressing inequality. The new clause simply looks at one element of taxation and asks for an accurate report on whether it helps in the redistribution of wealth and in tackling inequality.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman has expressed his concerns about rising inequality. Why does he think the Opposition have been so timid in proposing remedies? Are they afraid of something? Are they worried what the media might say?

[John McDonnell]

I will give the Labour party the benefit of the doubt. It has the national policy forum at the weekend, where there is the discussion and development of policy. That is the healthiest level of democracy we have had in the party for a number of years. I hope that it is bubbling up into a comprehensive programme that we can put before the electorate and that addresses the central issue of inequality. One way of doing that is to have accurate information before us, which is what the new clause seeks.

I will finish there because I know that other Members want to speak. I just warn the House that unless we address inequality, we will reap a whirlwind in our society. We saw riots only a few years ago. I think that the injustices in the distribution of wealth will provoke even greater conflict in our society unless it is addressed.

[Chi Onwurah]

I shall be brief. The new clause would force the Chancellor to publish a report that made it clear how the Government were balancing the books on the backs of the poor. [Interruption.] Ministers may laugh, but that is why they are afraid to make the information available. The benefits of rising prosperity and productivity are increasingly concentrated on a small group at the top.

At the same time, there is growing evidence that economic inequality is a drag on the economy. Business profits, literally, from being part of a better functioning and more equal society. Businesses can function only when people form a society that is structured around the principles of trust, responsibility and fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

That is correct. It is a higher proportion than ever; it is more than was being received under Labour—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I really should allow time for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood to speak. On this record, this Government can be proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

We have had a good debate on our new clause. As I expected, the tone of the Minister’s remarks suggests that he will not take the opportunity to support it, despite accepting the fact that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has joined us in saying that more research, data and analysis are necessary if we are to get a complete answer on the issues of data and yield relating to a 50p top rate of tax. I note that he did not answer my earlier question about that. If he wants to say to the country that his Government have cut the 50p rate with justification, he should not have shown himself to be afraid of such data. The Government should have agreed to the new clause, as its proposals would have settled the matter once and for all. I ask again, what does the Minister have to be afraid of? We will be pressing the new clause to a vote.

[John McDonnell]

Let us get the figures clear. On the percentage of gross income that goes on taxes, for the bottom quintile it is 37.4% and for the top quintile it is 35%. The poorest pay more.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has put that point on the record—

Loan Protection Gap

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I belatedly welcome the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) to her new position as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. She served with some distinction for four years on the Treasury Committee. As a continuing member of the Committee, I congratulate her on her appointment and welcome her to what I think is her first Adjournment debate.

More than 80% of borrowers have no form of protection to safeguard their loans, and the number of those in that position is on the increase. The disparity between the number of vulnerable consumers who need loan protection and those with an insurance policy is referred to as the loan protection gap. In this debate, I intend to raise five key issues involving loan protection insurance policies. First, I will draw attention to the significant minority of vulnerable consumers who continue to experience the damaging effects of excessive debt on their work, health and family life. Given that the squeeze on real incomes continues at a time of increasing consumer expenditure, the problem is likely to intensify, especially for those on the bottom half of the income scale.

There are any number of surveys confirming the squeeze on living standards. I will refer to just three. The first, a 2013 study carried out by the university of Birmingham on financial inclusion, showed that the real value of wages in 2012 had fallen back to 2003 levels. In this year’s “Green Budget”, the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that living standards have declined over the past five years, and the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s own independent forecaster, confirmed in its recent budget report that living standards will not recover to 2008 levels until 2018. Incidentally, in relation to loan protection, the OBR also forecast that the level of household debt will increase each year over the forecast period to 2018.

Secondly, I will show that the payment protection insurance mis-selling scandal has led to a collapse in trust and confidence in protection products and that, as a result, such policies have been withdrawn from the market by all but the very small, bespoke, specialist providers. PPI mis-selling is the biggest financial services scandal ever. It has affected every major bank, £13 billion has been paid in compensation and the bill is still rising. I asked the House of Commons Library to survey the market for protection policies. I would never call it a scientific study, but it gives a representative idea of what has happened in the marketplace. Unsurprisingly, the findings are somewhat depressing. PPI is seen as toxic, with little or no prospect of the main players re-entering the market. As a result, provision has declined significantly. Some policies are still provided, but mostly by small specialist providers.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

One of those specialist providers is CUNA Mutual. CUNA is working with the largest credit union in my area, Plane Saver, which brings together British Airways staff and has been running for a number of years, and has developed what seems to be a way forward that provides at least an element of protection: the debt waiver system, at least for credit union services. Has my hon. Friend come across that? I would welcome discussions with the Minister, maybe involving a visit to my constituency to meet the Plane Saver group to examine this potential way forward.

[Mr Love]

I have indeed heard of the Plane Saver credit union, and I have been in touch with CUNA Mutual as well. I will talk later about the debt waiver system that they have introduced; it is one of a selection of protection products that should be available more widely in the market but are not. I will discuss some of the reasons why.

Payment protection insurance is currently provided only by small, specialist providers. As a consequence of that and of the lack of competition in the market, it has increased in cost. At a time when incomes are being squeezed, expensive income protection policies are an unwelcome additional cost for consumers.

Thirdly, surveys confirm that financial insecurity is on the rise. At the same time, protection products are totally absent from the market. The result has been the creation of a protection gap. Is the Minister aware of those developments? What steps are being taken to address this clear market failure?

In 2013, CUNA Mutual carried out a survey of financial insecurity in more than 2,000 households. Its findings were stark: two out of three were concerned about losing their job; six out of 10 were anxious about their financial affairs; 20% would find themselves in financial difficulties within a month of losing their job, rising to 30% in some regions of the country; 44% claimed that they were cutting back on heating and 59% on food, simply to make ends meet. Other surveys confirm that the number of borrowers safeguarding new loans or income has collapsed to less than 1%. Taking all those changes into account—I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my view—the Treasury, as a matter of urgency, should conduct a review of the state of consumer protection in credit markets to determine a plan of action to close the protection gap.

Fourthly, with traditional income protection policy tarnished, what new models of loan protection can fill the gap? Guidance was provided some time ago by the Financial Services Authority on a suite of transparent, fair and affordable lending policies, but it has had little impact on the market. The Government must show leadership by promoting the introduction of policies that will provide solutions to the protection gap. CUNA Mutual suggests that 95% of mortgages are currently sold to customers without any insurance.

This issue is not just about consumer protection. In a recent survey, 70% of respondents said that they do not trust the banking and financial services sector. Loan protection can act as a form of stimulus to get lending going again. The credit union mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has experienced a boost in the number of mortgages due to the protection policy that it provides.

On the positive side, there have been some modest developments. In 2011, CUNA Mutual asked the FSA to test the debt waiver before CUNA took it up. It tested successfully and, as I will discuss, it has been introduced in a number of mutual organisations. In its 2013 report on loan protection, ResPublica, the well-known think tank, recommended that the Government should encourage the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds, the two banks with major public involvement, to adopt the debt waiver. I concur with that recommendation, but little has been done to follow up on it.

Fifthly, the mutual sector is leading the way in tackling the protection gap through the use of the debt waiver in its lending. This shifts the emphasis on to the lender to indemnify the loan, rather than placing the emphasis on the customer to insure their ability to pay. What steps are being taken to encourage the financial services industry to follow the guidance of the FSA regarding the debt waiver and other similar products, so as to help to tackle the protection gap?

The debt waiver is relatively new to the UK, where it has been introduced in a number of organisations, but it has a long and successful track record since the 1930s in north America. Incidentally, it was introduced at the height of the great depression, to help try to restore confidence among the public in lending. In its 2013 report, ResPublica recommended that the regulator fast-track the debt waiver and other similar products, but nothing much seems to have happened. Three mutuals, including the one referred to by my hon. Friend, have introduced the debt waiver very successfully, in one case providing coverage for accident and sickness for up to one year, through the debt waiver, at no cost to the borrower. In my view, that is a very good deal for the consumer.

However, all these things are, of course, just the tip of the iceberg when set against the 95% of people who simply do not have any coverage at the moment. That is the argument; that is the need; and that is what I hope to get a response on from the Minister.

In conclusion, the challenge for the Government, the financial services industry and indeed all stakeholders is to recognise the dramatic impact that mis-selling PPI has had on the market for protection policies; to quantify the resulting loan protection gap; and, most importantly, to challenge the industry—all those lenders out there—to take the necessary action to tackle the gap. I hope that the Minister will concur and will take steps to address this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman make a very good point. Since I am extremely new in the job, I hope that he will forgive me because that is a point that I cannot answer. Nevertheless, it is an excellent idea and perhaps I can write to him on it. I would certainly take such a good suggestion forward.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister may well gain inspiration on that while I am talking. I requested earlier that she come to meet the Plane Saver credit union in my constituency. That group meets the objectives she mentioned not just by providing protection; we have found that it is also encouraging more savers to join the credit union. It seems to tackle both issues at the same time, so perhaps that is a model she would like to explore in more detail.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his invitation. I am keen to become more closely involved in such an important issue and so will discuss with my team whether I can come to meet his constituents. I thank him again for the invitation.

Finally, I want to mention the provision of debt advice. Where people get into financial difficulty, the Government are committed to ensuring that they can access free help and advice on managing debts. That is why the Government have put funding for debt advice on to a sustainable footing.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Edmonton again for instigating this debate on such an incredibly important issue. We know that times have been extraordinarily tough and continue to be so for many people in the United Kingdom, and we are determined to do more to ensure that consumers get the advice and support, the responsible lending, and the suite of products that they need to enable them to manage their own financial affairs more effectively.

Taxation: Rebates

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[John McDonnell]

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax refunds were made in the tax years (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12 and (d) 2012-13 for (i) income tax, (ii) value added tax, (iii) corporation tax and (iv) national insurance; and what the total value of refunds was in each such category in each such year.

[Official Report, 31 March 2014, Vol. 578, c. 479-80W.]

Letter of correction from David Gauke:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on 31 March 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Gauke]

The figures shown represent the value of repayment figures as included in the accrued net revenue figures in the Statement of Revenue, Other Income and Expenditure which are published in the Annual Report and Accounts. We hold only the total value not number of repayments made by tax type.

Zero-hours Contracts

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alison McGovern]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Given the plethora of things that found attention in today’s Budget, it was a surprise that the Chancellor did not want to talk about zero-hours contracts, which seem to be at the heart of the Government’s approach to economic recovery.

I want to return briefly to the numbers. If the Minister has not yet clocked the problem, she ought to. The ONS has effectively said that previously it was undercounting due to the definitions in the labour force survey and/or a problem with people’s awareness that they are on zero-hours contracts. We now cannot tell what the trend is. The latest statistics may or may not represent a massive spike in the use of zero-hours contracts—I do not know. We cannot tell whether the statistics show a rise or a fall, because it is clear that the ONS has been undercounting previously. I would therefore like to know what further research DBIS has commissioned. As policy makers, we are in an awful situation—there is a phenomenon in the labour market, but we do not know what is happening. What further research has been or will be commissioned by DBIS, because unless we know whether the phenomenon is radically and exponentially increasing, how can we know what measures should be taken to tackle it?

Secondly, I would like to know what the Government are doing. The Minister will probably stand up and say that they have talked about preventing exclusivity clauses, which is okay and fine, but there is a raft of other ways in which the Government need to tackle the phenomenon, not least the one mentioned by one of my hon. Friends in relation to the Work programme and jobcentres. For example, are jobs on zero-hours contracts routinely being advertised through Jobcentre Plus and are claimants then sanctioned if they do not take them? I am afraid that it will not be enough for me to know whether a policy document exists. I would like to know whether the Minister believes that people are routinely being sanctioned for not taking jobs on zero-hours contracts, because it would be terribly serious if that were the case.

I have always said that if a small business offers opportunities on a zero-hours basis, as and when, and the person taking that job is in no way penalised if they turn down the hours—either they are a student or they just want to keep their hand in with a job but do not want lots of hours—that would be okay in my book. However, the problem is that we are in a world in which Jobcentre Plus is being directed to get the claimant count down, and we know that there are significant problems in the DWP and in that organisation. I am very worried about the idea that my constituents and others are being forced into employment on a basis that they do not really want or feel comfortable with because of current policy decisions.

I stand in this Westminster Hall debate today, proud of Wirral council, the local authority in which I am a Member of Parliament, because it has tried to adopt Unison’s ethical care charter. The council has said—to respond to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith)—that in its commissioning, it wants to adhere to standards to ensure that, in the very important work of looking after older people or those who are vulnerable and need a bit of help, it is not participating in a race to the bottom. That involves moving away from zero-hours contracts, paying properly for travel time, trying to get to the living wage and ending 15-minute appointments.

Without going deeply into the care sector, we need to look at the role of central and local Government in preventing zero-hours contracts, in both their commissioning and procuring roles. We can try to lead from the front. I would like to know what conversations the Minister has had across DBIS on procurement and commissioning, and across the Government on moving away from zero-hours contracts and saying, “In general terms in our economy, it is not a hugely helpful phenomenon to have people with unpredictable levels of income at the end of each month.” Will the Government lead the way in trying to set the standard in the labour market? What conversations has the Minister had about that?

This issue has been mentioned, but I would also like to know what the Government are doing to enforce the minimum wage properly. It seems to me that there is a group of—not universally, but broadly—women in society who are at risk of not being paid the minimum wage. They are in a workplace in which they are not necessarily powerful, and they often have child care or other caring responsibilities alongside their job, and cannot be expected to expend the time and effort to take their cases forward. It falls as a duty on us in this House and on the Government to ensure that we stand up for those people and ensure that they get the minimum wage.

Without focusing universally on the care sector, there was further new evidence this week that it is becoming more difficult to have a predictable or the same carer all the time. Part of that is about the use of zero-hours contracts and their unpredictability. I repeat my question to the Minister: what cross-Government conversations has she had to find out what actions DBIS needs to take to lead in response to the phenomenon?

I do not know whether the Minister is aware, but zero-hours contracts are not the only problem in this sphere. Often, they go alongside the use of agencies and other ways in which people find loopholes to get around their responsibilities. I would not want us to bear down on the use of zero-hours contracts only to see the problem pop up in another guise. The Minister should be aware of that problem as we move forward. It should not be about closing down one way of getting around employers’ responsibilities, only for the problem to raise its head under another definition. The Minister needs to think carefully about that.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend concludes, I want to congratulate her not only on today’s debate, but on the significant work she has done over the past two years. She has concentrated to a certain extent on the care sector, but may I point her towards the fast food industry? With the bakers’ union, we have just launched a campaign in the fast food sector not only for the living wage, but to oppose the imposition of zero-hours contracts, because they are used by managers to intimidate workers. For example, if a worker seeks to join the union or seeks to exercise or make representations about their rights, they will be denied work under zero-hours contracts for the following week. We are seeing them being used as an intimidatory tool, as well as one of exploitation.

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the worst things about zero-hours contracts is what I call “zero-hours contracts as a management tool”. People have brought cases to me where, for whatever reason, somebody’s face did not fit and they did not end up getting any hours. That is no replacement for the usual practices of good management and all the rest of it, so it is something that we absolutely need to be aware of.

Another thing that employers can practically do to help us to deal with the situation is encourage people to join a trade union—I would say that, being a Labour MP. People will not always have the capacity to raise such issues themselves, but with workplace representation, they can, and we can help on low-paid work issues, such as getting people skills and boosting their abilities. I am sorry to be so predictable—being a Labour MP and supporting people joining a trade union—but there is a reason for joining a union. A union is a practical bit of infrastructure that can help businesses to give their workers a sense of being involved in the leadership, and help to tackle some of these problems. I think good employers would agree with me on that.

I want to take the opportunity to thank parliamentary colleagues who have taken the time to come along to today’s debate. Most importantly, however, I thank every single person who has been in touch with me over the past week or so since I was awarded the debate. I also thank all the people who have been in touch with me over the past six months to share their experience. I felt the experiences of people working on that basis were totally hidden. They are not hidden now. The question is: what can we do about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

As I said, zero-hours contracts can have a place in the labour market. They can suit some people—students, people with caring responsibilities and others—but clearly they are not appropriate for everyone. Anecdotal evidence, including that highlighted by the hon. Member for Wirral South and by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), suggests that some individuals are being pressured into working when it does not suit them and have the implied threat hanging over them of being denied future work, which removes the flexibility for those individuals.

[John McDonnell]

I will give hon. Members just one example. The bakers’ union convened a meeting of fast-food workers a month ago, and a Costa worker turned up. Because he had not smiled enough that day, he was not going to get any work for the following week. These contracts are used as an intimidatory tool by managers, and we all have to condemn that, do we not?

[Jenny Willott]

I completely agree. The behaviour that the hon. Gentleman describes is not right and is not appropriate for a responsible employer. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House completely agree with that.

Some individuals have been working regular hours for long periods only to find that they are “zeroed-down”—their hours are brought down—when demand falls, perhaps due to the loss of an order. Clearly, that dramatic change in working hours and the resultant income loss will have a significant impact on the individual, especially if they are the only person working in the household. When individuals have their income supplemented by benefits, an increase or decrease in hours and income can have quite a significant impact on their benefits, which can be very difficult to manage in terms of household income.

Hon. Members raised issues about the link between jobseeker’s allowance and zero-hours contracts. Clearly, the Government’s priority is to help people on benefits to move off them and into work as soon as possible. However, as the hon. Member for Wirral South highlighted, some media reports suggest that people claiming jobseeker’s allowance are being told that they must apply for vacancies that are advertised as zero-hours contracts. I must stress that that is not the case. In such cases, someone’s benefit would not be sanctioned. DWP decision makers cannot mandate claimants to apply for zero-hours contracts, although they are obviously free to apply for such a job if it would suit them. The uncertainty about the hours of work offered by the employer and about the amount earned and so on can present difficulties for individuals, so someone would not be sanctioned for not applying for one of those jobs.

It is very important that individuals make informed choices when applying for or accepting work, and employers must ensure that both job adverts and employment contracts are transparent. People have the right to know up front that a contract does not guarantee work, if it is a zero-hours contract, so that they know what they are signing up to. The evidence that we have received in the Department is that that certainly is not the case for everyone on a zero-hours contract, and that needs to be resolved.

Hon. Members have also raised issues about the care sector and the entitlement to payment for the time spent travelling between jobs. I want to be clear that employers must ensure that their workers are paid at least the national minimum wage for the hours that they work. Time spent travelling on business, including between house calls, counts as time worked for minimum wage purposes. Where the travelling time is time for which the minimum wage should be paid, any associated expenditure incurred by the worker in respect of that travelling is classified as being in connection with the employment. A worker who is paid at minimum wage rates would therefore need to be reimbursed the expenses for the travelling in order for the employer to be in compliance with minimum wage legislation.

Newspaper Supply Chain

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel]

I completely agree. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. It is not a new problem; it has been going on for decades. There is a lack of negotiation, and newsagents are just a second thought. Any newsagent will be able to wax lyrical about the poor service they receive. From my experience in my parents’ shop, I have seen the supermarket down the road getting its newspapers first. When the newspapers are taken off the lorry, the independent newsagent is bypassed completely. That is simply not acceptable, but the wholesalers operate a virtual monopoly.

It is astounding that despite the monopoly conditions to which independent retailers are subjected, the Office of Fair Trading decided in 2009 and 2012 against referring the matter to the Competition Commission for further investigation. There is a strong case for opening up the sector and looking at the way those organisations are governed. That outcome is grossly unfair to the tens of thousands of independent newsagents who, as I know, are up at 4 am—before dawn—to serve the public. They work long hours to deliver a service for their customers, but they are forced to accept declining margins, higher charges and appalling service.

In my capacity as chair of the all-party small shops group, I am frequently contacted about this issue. I receive regular communications from newsagents across the country about the problems they encounter as a result of the lack of competition in the wholesale market. If a newsagent is dissatisfied with the products they sell and the terms and conditions they receive, they are hemmed in, because there are not many places for them to go. When it comes to general products, an independent newsagent can go to many cash and carries—of course they can, because there is competition in the marketplace—but they are limited as to where they can go for newspapers and magazines. There is simply no other avenue, which is why so many newsagents feel aggrieved. The market is stacked, rigged against them, and the Minister must review that.

The consequences of a lack of competition in the wholesale market and the dominance of the relationship between the publishers and wholesalers over independent retailers are profound. Notably, the margins that newsagents receive on newspapers are declining, and fast. Just as the cover prices of newspapers are set by the publishers, so too are the margins that retailers receive. When prices increase, the share that the retailer receives does not always follow. Some newspapers, such as The Telegraph and the Express, have accompanied their recent price increases with a pro rata rise in the amount received by the retailer, so that the margin remains the same. Many others, however, have not done so. The Mirror, for example, did not pass on a pro rata rate when prices increased from 70p to 80p in January, with the percentage received by retailers being slashed from 22% to 21%. In Scotland, the equivalent margin fell from 23% to 21%. Since January, it has been reported that one particular publisher has cut the margins received by retailers for 65 out of 138 titles.

It is understandable that publishers and wholesalers are looking for savings and efficiencies; I understand that the marketplace is changing. However, the arbitrary nature of decisions to cut retailers’ margins seems harsh—it is a blunt instrument—and the effect on profitability is pretty stark for independent retailers. I hope that the Minister will look into that aspect of the relationship between wholesalers and publishers.

On top of the fact that margins are being eroded, newsagents face higher costs from what are known as carriage charges, imposed by wholesalers. Originally introduced after the first world war to protect the universal availability of newspapers and their distribution to remote areas, carriage charges have soared over the past 20 to 25 years. I know that because my dad always used to complain about them. Despite the falling volume of newspapers and magazines being sold and distributed, carriage charges are rising and now represent the primary source of profit for wholesalers.

It says something about the effect of carriage charges in recent years when an increase of 2% announced by Smiths last summer was welcomed by some newsagents. That puts the figures into context. The fact that the steep rise in carriage charges has coincided with the signing of exclusive distribution deals between publishers and wholesalers, and with the collapse of competition among wholesalers, adds to the injustice that independent retailers feel—it is the icing on the cake—with a duopoly in place and the OFT failing to take action.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I think the hon. Lady’s dad was right. We debated this issue in this Chamber 10 years ago, when there were more wholesale distributors. We are now down to two, but they have cut their nose off to spite their face; they have forced the costs on to retailers, and now corner shops are going out of business and circulation is declining. Short-term profit-making is significantly undermining the entire industry in the long term.

[Priti Patel]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The shops that we are talking about are the lifeblood of many communities. I have seen, over 35 years, a massive change; there is no doubt that we have seen many big changes. Increases in carriage charges are relevant not only to Great Britain but to Northern Ireland. Newsagents there have faced huge increases in the past 12 months alone. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about where there is scope to review the changes to carriage charges.

HMRC Inquiry Centre Closures

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery]

The Minister nods positively. I am pleased: perhaps he can assure me that support will be given to staff who are uncertain about their future and that compulsory redundancies will not be made.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

We are all grateful that the Minister met the union, but let us be clear: he met the union only after this debate was announced. There has not been full transparency in the sharing of information with the union by management about the various options going forward. The Government introduce changes, but it is best to do so in a negotiated way rather than by imposing them, as this management seems to have done.

[Ian Lavery]

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for a positive intervention.

The pilot scheme has been rolled out not just in my constituency, but in my region—the north-east area. In June last year, 13 offices in the north-east of England were closed, including Royal Sovereign house in my constituency, in Morpeth. They were closed as part of a pilot of the new needs-enhanced support service model. If the closures of all 281 offices throughout the UK go as planned in June, I hope that HMRC does a better job of letting the public know than it did in our region last year.

I have heard examples of people travelling miles, only to find their local office no longer open to the public. In one prime example, an 85-year-old man used two buses to get to Scarborough, only to find the inquiry centre closed. Staff were actively prevented from assisting him: I repeat that they were actively prevented from assisting an 85-year-old gentleman. Another member of the public was trapped inside Gilbridge house in Sunderland, while trying to look for the inquiry centre, which had been closed. Many taxpayers decided to travel outside the region to inquiry centres that were still open, just so they could get face-to-face advice.

A recently widowed elderly woman turned up at Gilbridge house office for assistance with a tax form she needed to complete on behalf of her late husband. She told a member of HMRC staff that she simply did not feel that she could discuss her affairs over the phone, that she was afraid of completing it herself, just in case she did anything wrong, and that she could not grieve properly while she had this worry on her mind. I use this specific example, because staff are particularly concerned about the prospect of mainly older customers getting the support they need to complete the R27 form over the telephone, as these appointments need time. They not only need time; they need empathy, understanding and a common touch. It is common for staff, so they tell me, to keep a box of tissues handy on their desk for such occasions. It is hard to see how this kind of personal service can be replaced over the phone or on the internet. What assurances can the Minister give that such people, who will be in a particularly vulnerable state, will not be disadvantaged by the new service?

There are also problems involving equality issues. It is clear that the pilot scheme could not possibly identify the equality impacts on customers and staff, due to the demographics of our north-east region. For example, migrant workers make up 25% of all inquiry centre customers. However, the percentage of these customers is much lower in the north-east of England than it would be in other regions, such as London, which is a prime example. The consultation carried out by HMRC last year did not present equality data about customers. The document was not produced in different languages, which is of particular concern considering the high number of migrant workers who use the service. Only 11% of staff work part time in the north-east, compared with a national average of 36%. For example, 45% of workers in Wales and Scotland work part time. Only 7% of staff declared a disability in the north-east, compared with 27% based in Wales. Some 30% of inquiry centre staff in London and south-east are black, Asian and minority ethnic, compared with just 2% in the pilot area. How can the pilot area possibly identify the equality impact these closures will have on the country as a whole?

It is also worth mentioning, while considering the equality implications of this decision, that in October 2013 three appellants supported by the Low Incomes tax Reform Group won their appeal against the HMRC’s requirement that they must file their VAT returns online. A tax tribunal found that HMRC’s regulations that required online filing of VAT returns without providing exemptions for older people or disabled people, many of whom live in parts of the country that are too remote for broadband access, breached the appellants’ human rights and were unlawful in EU law.

If we consider the intervention of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), it is important that ordinary people can access those services. It does not matter whether those people live in London or in rural areas where access is extremely difficult. It was identified early in the pilot that a significant number of customers will not be able to call contact centres or interact with the website owing to the cost and low mobile or internet access in many parts of the UK. The taxpayers who are most likely to be prevented from accessing the proposed new service owing to the cost are the most vulnerable members of society. They are not able to afford a landline or a mobile telephone, and even if they own a mobile telephone it is often on a pay-as-you-go facility with a minimum amount of credit reserved for emergency calls only. Those taxpayers include the unemployed, people on low incomes, migrant workers, pensioners, people on child benefit and child tax credit claimants. Those taxpayers rely heavily on the free service that is currently provided by our inquiry centre network because their tax queries are often complex.

Low earners, for example, often work in multiple jobs to provide for their family, which means that the tax code is often incorrect. They visit the HMRC inquiry centres to use the free phones and free internet facilities or to receive face-to-face support and advice. HMRC agreed that an alternative access solution needed to be found if the new model was to be rolled out nationally. It is therefore concerning that the decision to move to the new service model and to close the inquiry centres has been made despite HMRC not having found those solutions.

Can the Minister reassure me that solutions have been found? If not, why has a decision been made without the Department having been able to resolve those important issues? Even in areas that have decent mobile phone coverage, taxpayers need to be reassured that contact centres will be sufficiently staffed to handle their calls. If the closures go ahead, people will no longer be able to walk into their local inquiry centre and receive face-to-face assistance on tax issues that are often complex. Instead, they will have to call a contact centre. A member of staff will then vet them and determine whether to refer them to another adviser. Only if that two-tier adviser deems it appropriate will a taxpayer classed as needing enhanced support be given access to face-to-face advice. Call handling levels have consistently been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. There are figures that prove conclusively that people will find it extremely difficult to contact the centres.

The fact that we are removing HMRC offices from local communities is one of the most important issues. HMRC is effectively moving its presence away from people who are supposed to pay, which will make closing the tax gap even harder. It will make tax compliance more difficult, both for those who want to comply but cannot get access to the information they need and for those who intentionally want to slip under the radar because they are disengaged with the tax authority at a local level. Those concerns have been raised by a large number of stakeholders in the public consultation exercise, including by the Association of Taxation Technicians, Citizens Advice, Gingerbread, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Lancaster city council, Milton Keynes council, TaxAid and a number of individual taxpayers. What work has HMRC done to estimate the amount of money that could be lost in uncollected tax owing to large numbers of taxpayers being prevented from engaging with the Department?

I conclude simply by asking the Minister to reconsider the decision to close the offices. There is a real danger that if the plans go ahead, some of the most vulnerable people in society will lose their access to HMRC’s services. Hundreds of quality jobs will be lost, and the Government’s attempts to tackle the tax gap will be seriously set back. It would surely benefit society and the economy if the Government would concentrate on closing the tax gap, not tax offices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The point I was making is that, yes, 281 inquiry centres are being closed, but there will be something like 350 venues that will be used for face-to-face meetings under the new regime. HMRC fully acknowledges that there is a need to deal with those people who require enhanced support and face-to-face meetings. It has been clear about that.

[John McDonnell]

The problem with call centres is that in order to secure a face-to-face meeting, someone has to get through on the phone. At the moment, the Public Accounts Committee has set HMRC a performance target of 90% of calls for 2013-14, but performance, as at December 2013, was 76.2%. So HMRC is significantly failing its existing call centre targets already.

[Mr Gauke]

It is worth making the point that HMRC has recently gone through one of the biggest peaks for telephone calls during the year, which is the self-assessment deadline at the end of January, and it met the 90% target even on the last day of January, so there is some progress in terms of HMRC’s contact centre performance.

In the time that I have available, I will turn to the consultation and pilots. As many hon. Members will be aware, in developing and refining the new service, HMRC undertook a wide-ranging consultation on its proposals last year. It also piloted the new service in the north-east of England from June to December 2013, closing 13 inquiry centres including, as we have heard, the Morpeth inquiry centre in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wansbeck, so as to run the live trial. Feedback from customers and staff has helped to shape the service that will now be rolled out nationally, which includes introducing alternative routes for deaf, hard-of-hearing and speech-impaired customers to contact HMRC online, and making it easier for a friend or family member to contact HMRC on behalf of a customer to arrange a face-to-face appointment.

Customers who have used the new service have liked it. Independent research has shown that the new service has delivered an improved service for customers who need extra help, compared with their previous experiences with HMRC. Some calls, particularly those about tax credits, can also be handled effectively by HMRC’s contact centre advisers. I know that concerns have been raised about the ability of contact centres to cope with the increased demand, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. However, as I have said, even in the self-assessment tax return peak in January, HMRC handled almost nine out of 10 calls first time.

I conclude by reassuring hon. Members that HMRC is making these changes for two main reasons: first, to better meet the needs of those 1.5 million customers who need more help with their tax and benefits; and, secondly, to ensure that the services it provides represent the best value for money for taxpayers. Many inquiry centre staff will have the opportunity to apply for roles in the new service; many others will choose to leave HMRC through a voluntary exit scheme, or will seek redeployment to other roles within HMRC or in other Government Departments. In short, HMRC is doing the right thing for its customers and for the country, and as a responsible employer it is treating its staff with consideration and respect as it implements this important new service.

Question put and agreed to.

Money Transfer Accounts and Remittance Sector

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that we get on with it. My point is that, four months after the announcement that the action group would be set up, it has not yet met, and as far as I am aware we do not know who will chair it, unless the Minister can give us more information in his speech.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to reflect the concern on both sides of the House about the lack of urgency on the matter. We expected a great deal more progress than has been achieved so far. The sense of urgency comes from our constituents whose families are dependent on remittances. In some instances, it literally is about people’s security as a family in the long term.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need firmer information from the Minister about when he expects that progress will be made, so we look forward to his speech.

For example, will the Minister guarantee that the action group will meet the target date—the deadline—of April 2014 to formulate new official guidance for money services businesses and banks, especially on agreeing how to deal with money laundering and terrorism risks? Does he anticipate that that will make it easier for banks to start providing bank accounts again? Is it his intention that that should happen by April, May, June, the summer, or within the one-year deadline? What estimate has he made of how many money transfer companies have been forced out of business so far, and how many will be forced out of business in the meantime due to the lack of a bank account?

I have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for her leadership on the issue, even though that has not, unfortunately, been able to save the business in my constituency. The Government must get on with finding the solution to the problem. If they do not, many decent, law-abiding small businesses, which are often located in the poorer parts of our country, will be forced out of business by the indifference of the authorities to the actions of the big banks, meaning that the livelihoods and well-being of some of the world’s poorest people in developing countries will be placed in hazard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the state-owned banks came about by accident rather than design, and the Government’s overriding purpose now is to return those banks to the private sector, with the best interests of shareholders paramount. With regard to Government involvement in the banking sector, he mentioned the Help to Buy scheme. That is a good example of a scheme that is designed to work through incentives. No bank is compelled to take part in that scheme or similar ones, such as the funding for lending scheme, which work through incentives. It is important to consider what the Government can do to make it easier for banks to stay in the MSB sector or to get more active in it. That is the right area to explore to help our constituents.

The Government cannot prevent UK banks from facing supervisory and enforcement action from other jurisdictions. Hon. Members know that this is not just about rules in the UK, because European Union rules, and especially rules in the US, affect many money transfer businesses, because most transfers typically have to be converted into US dollars and therefore touch US soil. What the US authorities think is therefore important.

We are committed to doing our utmost to ensure that remittances continue to flow through secure, legitimate channels. The market is adapting, and remittances are continuing to flow into and out of the UK. Particular concerns have been raised regarding Somalia, as we have heard today. That market, too, is adapting and remittance channels remain open. The supervisors and the Government have been monitoring the situation carefully. We know that all MSBs operating in the Somali corridor prior to the decision by Barclays continue to do so, with a number still having bank accounts. Although individual MSBs may be finding trading conditions more difficult, remitters can still service a wide range of customers in the UK and different areas in Somalia. Additionally, many MSBs across a range of corridors are becoming agents of other MSBs, and discussions have been held with various MSB communities on using cash couriers in a manner that is secure and compliant with legal requirements for the cross-border movement of cash.

We must ensure that our constituents are aware of the options available to help them to continue to make remittances. Since the previous debate on the matter in this Chamber, the Government have engaged directly with the Somali community on these options.

Since the previous time I addressed hon. Members on this issue, I have made a written ministerial statement setting out the cross-government effort to find solutions, which included an action plan to secure the continued flow of remittances. The plan includes steps to improve trust in the UK remittance market by the formal banking sector, for example, through building the capacity of money service businesses and providing guidance on the banking of such businesses. It also outlined the creation of an independent action group on cross-border remittances. Through this group, officials from across the Government are working closely with regulators and the private sector to facilitate a sustainable market-based solution. The first full meeting of the group is scheduled to take place next Friday—31 January. I am pleased to announce today that Sir Brian Pomeroy will chair the group. Sir Brian has extensive experience in this field, as the founding chairman of the Payments Council and the previous chair of the Treasury’s financial inclusion taskforce, and through his work with the Alliance for Financial Inclusion.

[John McDonnell]

Fauzia Adan, a former constituent of mine, is now Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister of Somalia. I am not sure whether there has been full dialogue with the Somalia Government regarding their representation on this group. Has a representative been nominated?

[Sajid Javid]

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman specifically whether a representative was nominated or if there will be one in the group, but I can certainly look into that and get back to him. I can confirm that we are working with the Somalia Government, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on this issue overall.

The Somalia-focused working group may be of particular interest to many hon. Members in the Chamber. The group has been tasked with developing a safer corridor pilot to ensure secure remittance channels to Somalia. The group will work with the World Bank, which will provide technical expertise, and the pilot will aim to improve the security, transparency and oversight of this existing remittance channel. The Department for International Development has held consultations to identify appropriate representatives for the working group on the safe corridor. International partners, including the World Bank, the G20 and the international strategic alliance on law enforcement, are also supporting this work.

The group working on the pilot has agreed its final terms of reference, through consultation with stakeholders, and these will be presented to the action group next week. The Somalia-focused group, working with its partners, including the World Bank and others, believes that there is a one-year implementation for the pilot project.

Before I conclude, I want to make sure that I have answered questions raised by hon. Members, if I have not answered them already. The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked about international engagement. I hope that I have given him some insight into that, regarding our working with the G20, the World Bank and other international partners. We are also working through the EU. The hon. Gentleman knows that a payment services directive exists, but a second payment services directive is being negotiated with EU partners. We have taken a strong interest in that to ensure that whatever comes out of it does not make this situation any more difficult, but helps to improve it by encouraging the development of rules to deal with money laundering and our other natural concerns that are proportionate and do not make the situation difficult for banks throughout the EU. We have to keep in mind that Britain has, I think, more money service businesses than any other European country, so that is another important aspect of our international engagement.

Several hon. Members asked how well Government co-ordination is working. We have a steering group at Government level, of which the Treasury is part, which meets every single week. As well as the Treasury, the group involves the Cabinet Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the National Crime Agency, which provides information from our intelligence agencies that we think might help, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Department for International Development. The Treasury is a core part of that group, which has proved important in ensuring that we stay on top of the issue and treat it with the urgency that it deserves.

Pub Companies

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

As a young boy, I was more or less brought up in a working men’s club. I went to it every weekend. I recognise the importance of our working men’s clubs, and I know that a situation arose whereby clubs were in hock to the brewers. What we must bear in mind is that this is intervention in the marketplace that we would see nowhere else in business.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is advancing a coherent argument, but surely he does not oppose the introduction of an adjudicator. We have done that in other contexts, such as supermarkets.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am certainly open to the idea of an adjudicator. My question is, who pays? It is estimated that the administration of an adjudicator could cost £1 million, which is a huge amount of money to take out of the beer and pub economy. Who is going to pay for what could be described as just another piece of red tape and Government regulation?

I genuinely ask the Minister why she would want to sit in judgment on rent disputes or other commercial or contractual disputes between two businesses, especially when effective mechanisms are already in place that are unique to the pub sector, independent and funded by the industry. I ask her to consider carefully the Office of Fair Trading’s report to the consultation. It clearly expressed the view that the tie is not distorting the market, and states that the proposed intervention could result in a breakdown in economies of scale, leading to an increase in rents and prices that would affect tenants and consumers. I also urge the Minister to consider the report from London Economics, which her own Department requested. It suggests that more than 2,400 pubs could close as a direct result of the proposed intervention in the market.

The reality is that many pub companies are nursing pubs because they cannot find a tenant or buyer for them. The proposed economic model would mean that those companies would have to free themselves of those pubs, which could lead to thousands of pubs closing in a very short time. I ask the Minister: why regulate? Is there a consumer issue involved? Not according to the Office of Fair Trading. Would regulation help the smaller brewers? Certainly not, according to the Society of Independent Brewers. That organisation represents the micro-breweries. We have heard people rejoicing today that those breweries have flourished and blossomed. There are now 1,000 micro-breweries operating in this country as a result of the progressive beer duty introduced by the previous Government—I commend them for that—so why would we want to interfere in the market, given that those brewers have clearly stated that to do so would prevent their access to the market?