High Speed 2

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this important debate, and on her excellent speech, with which I strongly agree.

I state categorically that I believe passionately in our railways; I have been a daily commuter for 50 years and I have always believed in their future. I continue to support strong investment in our railways, but not in HS2. The alleged business case for HS2 has two essential components: cost and need. The costs have been ballooning, dwarfing the claims of £50 billion by multiples. Even the rumoured likely costs now are way below what an eventual bill would be. With more time, I could give some explanations as to why, but I wish to focus on the supposed need and the likely passenger demand for HS2.

The business case is based on a frequency of 18 trains an hour leaving and reaching London. HS2 has grudgingly agreed that a figure of perhaps 16 trains an hour in off-peak periods might be appropriate. The trains would be some 400 metres long, probably with 16 carriages; they would be rather similar to Eurostar trains, which are 20 cars long, and capable of seating 80 passengers per carriage. That is well over 1,000 passenger seats on each train. With 18 trains an hour over the day, that would mean in excess of 200,000 passenger seats going to and from London. That is a significant proportion of the total population of Birmingham; it is complete nonsense. In any case, 18 trains an hour is just not possible. At a meeting of the Select Committee on Transport in 2011, SNCF witnesses from France with some knowledge of high-speed TGVs were astonished at the 18 trains an hour figure, saying it was impossible, and that 12 trains an hour was the absolute maximum.

HS2 has been in a mess and a panic for some time about costs. It asked if it would be possible to terminate trains at Old Oak Common and avoid the horrendously expensive costs of tunnelling through to Euston. The idea would be to transfer passengers to Crossrail at Old Oak Common. That would be impractical because of the vast numbers involved. Up to 20,000 extra passengers on Crossrail every hour is not a serious proposition. All this is just not credible. If HS2 goes ahead, we will surely see expensive trains on a very expensive track rattling around the country with very few passengers on them.

I want to end on a positive note. There are some serious and much-needed alternatives to HS2, and I have written a paper setting out some of them. I submitted my paper, prepared with the advice of a range of friends in the railway industry, to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee for its inquiry into HS2. I also submitted it to the recent Great British transport competition, supported by the TaxPayers Alliance, and was pleased that one of my proposals was selected as one of the winning schemes.

Most significantly, there is the GB freight route, with which I am involved and to which the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire referred. This would be a freight priority line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, built to a large-loading gauge and almost entirely on railway land, capable of accommodating full-sized lorry trailers on the trains. It would take some millions of lorry journeys off our roads every year, with immense benefits. It would link all the majority economic regions of Britain to each other, and to the continent of Europe, and Asia beyond.

There are several serious rail schemes that should be adopted and, if HS2 does not go ahead, all the schemes paused and abandoned by Government in recent times could simply be readopted. Electrifying the whole rail network, with massive improvements to railways in the north in particular, where rail has been disgracefully neglected, could and should go ahead. These schemes could provide many thousands of jobs very quickly, with track work ready to go. This would be money well spent in every sense.

We should reflect on the sensible Eddington report, which recommended rail investment in and around our major cities and conurbations, where real passenger need is most concentrated.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise—I think he does—that those of us in the north of England just want reliable and reasonably speedy connections between the towns of the north, and would love this sort of investment, sooner rather than later?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; absolutely. Even within the northern region there are some dreadful train services. There are old charabancs on rail tracks that are a disgrace and should have been replaced, and the lines have not been electrified. They should have been.

[Laura Smith]

It is key to note that for Northern Powerhouse Rail to happen, we have to have the HS2 infrastructure in place.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I think I have made my point. I am running out of time, Mr Hosie. I could go into much more detail, but on this occasion perhaps I should conclude here. I think the case against HS2 is overwhelming. I look forward to a sensible Government abandoning it and reinvesting in all the other schemes that are so much more beneficial and needed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

What can I say after that contribution, other than that it is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hosie? I also thank the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for bringing forward today’s debate in a very candid way.

It is absolutely right that this House scrutinises HS2. I have listened carefully to the debate, and it is absolutely clear that the objection is rooted not so much in the actual scheme as in the governance of it, and I, too, have put question marks over the governance and management of it. Some of that sits fairly and squarely with the Secretary of State and the fact that he is not doing his job of calling HS2 to account. Therefore, it will be absolutely right that, on Monday, hon. Members from across the House support my amendment calling for greater scrutiny of the project. I very much hope that they will join me in the Lobby.

I take issue with the fact that a number of non-disclosure agreements have been issued. We want there to be real transparency. That is about calling management to account for the way they are handling the employment situation in their organisation. It is absolutely right that those questions are asked of HS2 and that it is brought to account for that.

I want now to set out Labour’s position on the whole project. Connectivity and reliability must be at the heart of our railway system. There have been problems, and we need to make improvements. We are determined to do that through our enhancement programme. HS2 should not be segregated; it needs to be integrated into our rail enhancement work, and that is certainly what we want to do. We want to see more capacity built across our railways.

Our driving force is, first and foremost, to decarbonise our transport system. Currently, 29% of emissions come from our transport system, and we are in fact seeing regression on carbon reduction, not least with the deeply ecologically and environmentally damaging road building programme—road investment strategy 2—that the Government propose. We want to see good public transport investment, and certainly that is what people will get under a Labour Government.

We want to drive modal shift. It is so important to have people moving from their cars on to our rail network—we see that as comprising the main arteries of our transport system. But crucially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) said, we need lorries coming off the roads and freight moving on to rail. HS2 provides an opportunity to ensure that we have the good connectivity—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am afraid I do not have time.

There is an opportunity to have good connectivity between ports and airports and to ensure that we can bring that right through to urban consolidation centres and then to the final mile. We need to seriously decarbonise our transport system using rail.

We want skills to be at the heart of this opportunity as we build the rail network for the future, and that brings me to one of the questions I have for the Minister today. In the light of Hinkley point being behind schedule and of the number of infrastructure projects the Government have planned, we have a bell curve whereby we have a peak in demand for skills but not the skills to match that. How will she ensure that there are sufficient skills for this project, particularly given that, at its peak, it will provide jobs for 30,000 people? We need to ensure that the project is not delayed because of poor infrastructure planning across the economy.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who made a most excellent speech, about ensuring that we measure what we treasure. This is about jobs. Certainly on the Labour Benches, we believe that it is important that we invest in high-quality jobs for those areas of the country that have been missed out to date. Therefore, inward investment in the northern towns and cities, and in the midlands—east and west—will be vital to rebirthing our economy in those areas. At the moment, they are in a lot of pain because we have not seen that investment.

We have a real opportunity, but it has to be managed properly. Building capacity across our transport system is really important. We need sustained freight paths. Part of this will also be about seeing growth in patronage and ensuring that we reduce journey times. We need to lead that right into Scotland to ensure that we can see that modal shift from plane on to train. That is the larger vision of where we are going. But we would also do things differently; we make no bones about that. For instance, with parkway stations, it does not make sense that people have to drive to get the connectivity with the rail network. We would very much want to seek urban connection points; we believe that the situation needs to be reviewed.

The final phase of the project—the 2b stage—has to be fully integrated with trans-Pennine connectivity. This should be one project, not two segregated projects; it needs integrating. We hear that call from Transport for the North, and we hear it now from HS2, and we certainly hear the call from politicians across the north that it is time we brought those projects together into one. There are proposals for constructing things differently from the current Y shape and for making this much more about ensuring, first and foremost, that we get the connectivity across the north. The case was made very clearly in the House of Lords through the paper “Rethinking High Speed 2”, and we would certainly support that.

With regard to the way we proceed on this project, we believe that the missing piece, which is crucial, is that the project is not peer-reviewed. It must be peer-reviewed independently to ensure, first, that the engineering is right and, secondly, that the value is right. That is where the lack of accountability sits. Once we have that information before the House, we can make a sound judgment on whether the project will deliver the value, the jobs and the opportunity for conurbations across this country. Until that occurs, we will put a serious question mark over the governance and over this Government’s handling of the project. We believe that it could be in a different place. Certainly on the issue of cost—the cost financially, but also the cost to the environment—we need to ensure that all these measures are properly brought into check as we move forward in improving scrutiny.

On Monday, we have an opportunity to review phase 2a in relation to the Bill. Labour will bring forward amendments on Report, and we very much hope that people who believe there should be greater scrutiny, governance and accountability of HS2 will join us in the Lobby to ensure that we put in place the right checks and balances for this project, to drive up the very treasure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

Indeed, because the full stretch of HS2 will go up to Scotland. One of our ambitions is to reduce the journey time from London to Scotland. That is why we are continuing to ensure that we get through all the legislation and that the line stays on track.

HS2 will have a big impact on local jobs. At present we have over 2,000 businesses in the supply chain, 70% of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. That is what comes of building an ambitious railway line connecting eight of our top 10 cities.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

On the Scotland point, in 1990, British Rail ran a special train from King’s Cross to Edinburgh, with a two-minute stop at Newcastle, in three and a half hours—three and a half minutes faster than is planned for HS2. All that is needed is a bit of modification on the east coast main line, and that could be a regular service.

[Ms Ghani]

I am sorry, I was not in the House in 1990 when that was reported; I am talking about 2026 and 2033, when we will connect faster trains to Scotland.

I will now discuss some real live cases of how HS2 is bringing greater economic benefits than we thought would be possible over a decade ago. HSBC, for example, has brought 1,000 jobs to Birmingham by moving its retail and business banking headquarters. Other cities along the line are seeing benefits from businesses which are relocating, including Burberry investing in a new factory in Leeds, claiming proximity to the HS2 station as a key factor in its decision. Freshfields and EY now employ 1,000 people in Manchester. Locally, places are gearing up for the arrival of HS2: Toton has plans for it to facilitate the Toton innovation campus, with the potential for up to 10,000 new jobs and a range of new housing; and the Cheshire science corridor enterprise zone, which was launched in 2016, aims to create 20,000 jobs by building a golden triangle with Liverpool and Manchester.

I fear that I am running out of time, but the business case is clearly solid: there is one budget and one timetable—HS2 will continue on track. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire asked me to confirm at the Dispatch Box what the budget and the timetable are. I stand here to state confidently that the budget is £55.7 billion and that the timetable is 2026 and 2033. I look forward to continuing this debate on Monday afternoon, when we hope that the Bill will return to the Floor of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the business case for High Speed 2.

Economic Growth and Environmental Limits

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The work going on at the University of Leeds is incredibly exciting. It demonstrates that there is a lot of work going on, both in this country and internationally, into researching what alternative indicators might look like. I think what is lacking is a real commitment to move them into the mainstream. In the regular updates on the radio or in the Financial Times, when we hear about GDP growth and how we should be very happy that it has gone up, we could look at those indicators, which might well show that our wellbeing is being severely undermined by environmental damage.

Turning to the climate emergency, the primacy of GDP growth as the overarching priority for the economy is the elephant in the room. To quote Greta Thunberg,

“Our house is on fire”,

and the GDP growth obsession is the obstacle blocking the door to the emergency exit. In April, Greta visited Parliament and spoke about why she and millions of other young people were missing school to strike for the climate. She said very clearly that the way that we measure progress is absurd and archaic:

“People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished. But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I’m sorry, but it’s still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at…We should no longer measure our wealth and success in the graph that shows economic growth, but in the curve that shows the emissions of greenhouse gases.”

That call to rewrite the economic rulebook is echoed by many others in the climate justice network, including many in the grassroots movements for a green new deal in the UK and the US, and a vastly growing number of academics and economists. The reaction to a tweet by the London Mayor, Sadiq Kahn, one week into the Extinction Rebellion protests was interesting; it illustrates that climate justice is inextricably linked to the transformation of the economic system. To be fair, I am sure he did it without thinking it through that much, but he tweeted:

“My message to all the climate change protestors today is clear: let London return to business as usual.”

That tweet went down so terribly because the new climate justice movement understands that business as usual is killing the planet and destroying our children’s future. The litmus test for adequate climate action is no longer what is considered politically feasible within the current system; it is whether we are transforming the economic system to fit with what is scientifically necessary to keep within 1.5° of global heating, and to reverse the unravelling of the Earth’s life support systems before our eyes.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I have immense sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying, and I agree. She talked about political feasibility. All the proposals and politics that she is suggesting are difficult to achieve in an environment of gross inequality. Would it not be easier if we addressed equality, to make all these things more acceptable?

The Economy

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

At least the Scottish Government produced a White Paper, which was a heck of a lot more than the UK Government provided in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. Perhaps the fact that there was not enough information was the reason why a number of people in the UK felt they could not make up their mind on the referendum.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham spent a lot of time talking about fishing. One of his great heroines is Margaret Thatcher, but it was of course Margaret Thatcher who said that the Scottish fishing industry was “expendable”, so I will take no lessons from him on fishing.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the economy. My Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who has just come into the Chamber, tells me that the debate can last until 5 pm. I will not speak for the next two hours and 45 minutes, because some members of the Press Gallery would not be happy, but this is a good opportunity for us to focus on the record of a UK Government who are very much asleep at the wheel.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber earlier, but I was watching the debate, and I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said. As a socialist of the left, I clearly have some differences with him, but he focused on one thing with which I agree—the balance of trade and our enormous net financial contribution to the rest of the EU. That contribution amounts to about £100 billion this year: we are paying 5% net of our total GDP into the EU. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is a very valid point?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I am about to come on to Brexit. We know that Brexit is casting a very large shadow over the UK economy, and precious Government spending—up to £3 billion—is being set aside to counter the self-inflicted harm of a hard Brexit. After the Prime Minister took office, she said that she would deliver a red, white and blue Brexit, but I certainly did not expect such a Brexit to mean that passports would be made in France. But by all means—there you go.

One announcement that I do welcome is the Government’s decision on NHS staff pay. I welcomed it for the SNP from the Front Bench during yesterday’s urgent question. I commend the Government for taking action finally to give England’s hard-working NHS staff a pay rise, and I very much hope that the Welsh Labour Government will follow and do likewise.

Of course, in Scotland, the SNP Scottish Government was the first devolved Government in the UK to commit to lifting the public sector pay cap. We have already delivered on our promise on public sector pay, setting a 3% pay increase for those earning up to £36,500, which has the potential to benefit three quarters of Scotland’s public sector workforce. It is only fair that I declare an interest at this juncture in that my wife is a primary school teacher employed by Glasgow City Council and will receive that pay rise. Those earning over that threshold of £36,500 but less than £80,000 will receive a pay rise of up to 2%, and those earning over £80,000 will receive a £1,600 uplift. The 3% increase potentially covers 82% of NHS staff in Scotland for the next financial year, 2018-19. The Chancellor’s announcement will of course result in Barnett consequentials being allocated to the Scottish Government, and Ministers in Scotland have indicated that they will use this money to support “Agenda for Change” staff in Scotland.

Today’s general debate on the economy allows us the opportunity to take stock of the current economic climate, which does not make pleasant reading for Treasury Ministers. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts economic growth to be lower in each of the next five years than annual growth was in 2017, when it was 1.7%. Indeed, the Institute for Fiscal Studies notes that this puts the UK’s growth prospects

“among the worst in the G20.”

The right hon. Member for Wokingham—I am afraid that he is not in the Chamber—felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) painted a somewhat doom-laden picture, but that is just the reality. We can argue about politics, but we cannot argue about the facts. The IFS goes on to warn:

“Dismal productivity growth, dismal earnings growth and dismal economic growth are not just part of the history of the last decade, they appear to be the new normal.”

Britain now has the worst wage growth in 210 years, with a hard Brexit threatening to provide further shocks to an already fragile economy.

Treasury Ministers know that Brexit will be an economic disaster, and that is why the Government are setting aside £3 billion in 2018-19 and 2019-20 for expenditure on Brexit preparations. The Scottish Government will receive only 2.5% or £37 million of the funding allocated for 2018-19. I would be keen for the Exchequer Secretary, when he sums up, to explain how that figure was actually arrived at, because I certainly cannot work it out. It is deeply frustrating that the money we are receiving falls significantly short of the full Barnett share of the funding allocated at UK level.

I would be doing a huge disservice to Scotland if I did not take this opportunity to call once again, as many SNP colleagues have done, on Treasury Ministers to return the £175 million in past VAT payments to Scotland in respect of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I know that my own area commander would be more than happy to see some of that money coming back, and he could invest it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the great advantage of being a United Kingdom is that we can redistribute from the wealthiest areas to those in greater need? Sometimes, through the Barnett formula and regional spending, money can be redistributed from places such as the south-east, which is very wealthy, to places that are less wealthy, such as Scotland.

[David Linden]

Yes, and one of those less wealthy places is my constituency of Glasgow East, but people there do not regularly come to me and say how wonderful the United Kingdom is because it has these lovely nuclear weapons that can defend the foodbank in Parkhead. I welcome the decision to include the police and fire and rescue services in the exemption from UK VAT, but it is only fair that the £175 million is returned to Scotland, so that we can invest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirstene Hair]

I strongly believe that we should allow working people to keep more money in their pockets. The Conservative party has always been the party of low tax, and the contributions from Conservative Members today have shown how that is in the best interests of growing our economy.

The Scottish Government have made an immense mess of business rates, with Scottish businesses having to pay £14 million more in tax than they would if they were based in England. Small wonder that Scotland now has the lowest rate of business growth in the United Kingdom. Of course, it is again the nationalists who are holding Scotland back with their constant threats of putting us through a second independence referendum, which the people of Scotland do not want.

The SNP’s goal of independence inside the EU single market would destroy the internal market of the UK, which accounts for 61% of Scotland’s exports, yet the SNP turns a blind eye to that. Is it any surprise that businesses and investors are deterred by the SNP holding the threat of a second independence referendum over their heads? The Scottish Government want to sacrifice the UK internal market on the altar of the EU single market, which is almost four times less important to Scotland’s economy. They want to take Scotland back into the EU and—inevitably—subject Scottish fishing communities to the unjust common fisheries policy in perpetuity. For coastal communities in Angus and across Scotland, getting out of the CFP is the first, necessary step towards reviving our fisheries and wider coastal economy. Fishing already contributes greatly to the Scottish economy, and once out of the CFP, it will have even more to offer. I have said openly that this week’s transition deal was disappointing, and the UK Government will have to be extremely vigilant to ensure that the interests of our fishing industry are defended until the end of 2020.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I apologise for intruding on private Scottish grief. Does the hon. Lady not accept that the real reason we have sluggish growth in the United Kingdom as a whole is because of Tory austerity, cuts in public spending and low wage growth?

[Kirstene Hair]

The contributions from my hon. Friends, which I do not need to reiterate, showed the very positive steps the United Kingdom as a whole has taken. Scotland, however, has done less than half of that, which is why it is incredibly important to highlight.

Moreover, the UK Government must deliver full control of our waters, with no compromise on any final Brexit deal that sells out our fishermen in exchange for something else. But the facts remain the same: the Conservative UK Government want us out of the EU and out of the CFP so that our fishing industry can flourish again. The SNP Scottish Government want to fail coastal Scotland again by taking us back into the EU and back into the CFP.

The truth is clear. While the rest of the United Kingdom shares the fruits of successful Conservative policies, Scotland stagnates under the SNP. If anyone wants to know about the SNP’s attitude to economic growth, know simply that in 18 months it still has not spent a penny of its own £500 million growth scheme. I very much welcome the UK Government’s investment in the Tay cities deal. This will be a welcome boost to my local economy in Angus and I am working incredibly hard to ensure that rural areas receive their fair share.

I am counting down the days, as are many others, until 6 May 2021, when Scottish voters will give their verdict on the SNP’s era of stagnation and bring it to a close. In the meantime, we can only point out what must be done if Scotland is to return to prosperity: an end to the menacing speculation about indyref 2; a clear commitment to preserving the UK internal market through Brexit and beyond; the abolition of the “Nat tax” to ensure that Scotland is no longer the most taxed part of the Union, either for individuals or businesses; and the cutting out of waste and diverting that money to promote growth and make our public services functional again. I hope that, at some point in the next three years, the Scottish Government will see the light and allow Scotland to fully benefit from the strong UK economy that the Conservatives have built, but it is looking increasingly likely that that task will fall to our next First Minister, Ruth Davidson.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in a debate, even if, as often happens, it is at the tail-end. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions so far and for their specific interests in the economy. I would like to bring a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate.

The economy is an issue that affects every village, town and city in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We all read the grim, doomsday predictions about Brexit, yet we are still here and we are still standing. We will still be here and we will still be standing after 31 March 2019. I am a proud Brexiteer. Indeed, I think the Democratic Unionist party invented the word, because we were Brexiteers before the word was ever mentioned. We have always had concerns about Europe. It is good that we will now leave, and the sooner the better.

Like all Members, I am always interested to receive the constituency-tailored claimant counts, which indicate how the labour market is performing in our areas. I thank the economics, policy and statistics section of the Library for its sterling work, which it provides to us on request and as a matter of rote. Northern Ireland unemployment is down by 3,400 and now stands at 29,000. There has been a very focused economic strategy for Northern Ireland, which has worked out extremely well. We stand at 3.4% across the whole of Northern Ireland. Some constituencies are below that figure and some may be above it.

The total number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in my constituency in February 2018 was 1,370, or 3.2% of the economically active population aged 16 to 64—the 207th highest of the 650 UK constituencies—but that is down from 5% when I first came into the House in 2010. The equivalent UK claimant rate was 2.7%. The UK unemployment rate, which includes people not claiming benefits and is estimated from survey data, was 4.3% between November 2017 and January 2018. The number of claimants in Strangford constituency is 115 lower than in February 2017, which perhaps indicates that we are moving in the right direction. There were 290 claimants aged 18 to 24 in February 2018, which is 75 lower than February 2017. That, to me, is an indicator that we are progressing. Indeed, as a party colleague highlighted, the latest labour market statistics show Northern Ireland moving in the right economic direction.

It is important to say that we have not had a working, functioning Northern Ireland Assembly for 14 months. In that time, we have experienced some of the greatest growth in Northern Ireland for employment, job opportunities and the economy as a whole. Those are good things, even though we have not had a Northern Ireland Assembly to drive it. Significant employment opportunities have taken place because of the good work of, and the foundations laid down by, the Northern Ireland Assembly, when it was working, and the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Industry. One of my DUP colleagues, in the Belfast Telegraph, said:

“Boosting the economy through private sector growth has been a key DUP priority over the last decade. It is very welcome that private sector jobs are now at their highest level since records began in 1974. We want to see that grow further and significant funding secured through the Confidence and Supply agreement to deliver on key infrastructure projects such as the York Street interchange and the superfast broadband are the foundation of future growth.”

Some Members have referred to the £1.4 billion that the DUP secured with the Conservatives as part of the confidence and supply agreement. We would be happy to assist those who are interested in how to negotiate a good deal.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am pleased that Northern Ireland is doing relatively well, in spite of difficulties. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that a factor in manufacturing doing relatively well in Northern Ireland, and in the rest of the United Kingdom, is the depreciation of the pound following the referendum, and that keeping the pound at a sensible level would be better for Northern Ireland’s future and for the United Kingdom’s future?

[Jim Shannon]

It would be remiss of me to say other than that the value of the pound has enabled our exports to grow and our manufacturing base to maintain its position. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

The DUP’s confidence and supply agreement with the Conservative party has brought in money for everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they are Unionist, nationalist or anything else. Everybody gains from that agreement.

The House has seen progress on business rates and the small business rates relief scheme. I am very pleased that the Government have continued to ensure that that happens, because it will definitely bring benefit to all the high streets across the United Kingdom. Rates relief has brought opportunities and retained employment in shops in places in my constituency such as Newtownards, Comber and Ballynahinch. Rates relief ensures that we do not have empty shops. Those involved in the retail business say that we have some of the best shopping opportunities in the whole of Northern Ireland.

We have pursued the issues of air passenger duty and tourism VAT, negotiating and consulting with the Conservatives on how the confidence and supply agreement can benefit us, as well as the whole of the United Kingdom. There are advantages for others across the United Kingdom in a reduction to air passenger duty and tourism VAT. We need to be on equal terms with the Republic of Ireland to be able to grow our tourism sector. The DUP is continuing to work on issues that affect the local economy in Northern Ireland, as well as the whole of the UK economy. We are pleased to be part of the economic success story we have in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As the briefing paper succinctly put it, in terms we can understand, in 2016-17 the Government borrowed £46 billion to make up the difference between their spending and the income raised from taxes and other sources. Since 2009-10, the UK’s borrowing—often referred to as the deficit—has fallen by 70%, which again is good news. Borrowing is now at a similar level to that before the 2007-08 financial crisis, and the OBR forecasts that it will fall each year to just over £1 billion in 2022-23, which is equivalent to around 1% of GDP. If anyone thinks that this is not good news, they need to take another look at what it is saying. In laymen’s terms, we still have a massive debt—there is no doubt about that—but, in fairness to the Conservative party, it is trying hard to reduce the deficit, and if we continue along the lines we are on, it will be to the benefit of everyone in the Chamber and every one of our constituents.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

It will not have escaped Members’ attention that Christmas is coming. In fact, some of us may even have thought that Christmas was already here given that we enjoyed the previous debate so much. However, I must say that discussing this Finance Bill again feels like an alternative celebration on this side of the Chamber: groundhog day. For the third time since entering this House, I rise to speak about yet another woefully thin and inconsequential Finance Bill that fails to take the action that our economy so clearly requires.

The consequences of a Government focused on the management of internal party disputes, not sustainable economic growth, have become clear for all to see over the past few weeks: growth levels the third lowest in the OECD during the first half of this year; productivity growth lower than in the eurozone and well below the average of the EU as a whole; falling living standards, with wages under their longest squeeze since Napoleonic times; and a Government who have had to revise their targets for eliminating the current deficit no fewer than five times, and who are now resolved to eliminate the deficit only by 2030—15 years after the end date promised during the 2010 general election campaign. It’s behind you, to use a pantomime phrase—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) was keen on them in the previous debate. In that context, it is depressing to see the Government yet again pass up the opportunity to deal with aggressive tax avoidance and evasion in a steadfast manner.

Labour’s new clause 8 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effectiveness of the Bill in tackling artificial tax avoidance and tax evasion, and in reducing the tax gap, within six months of it entering into effect.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the first part of her speech. Some three or four years ago, the distinguished tax expert Richard Murphy estimated the total tax gap at £119 billion a year. To my knowledge, that figure has never been seriously challenged or debunked, and it may now even be higher. Does my hon. Friend accept that if the Government were serious about dealing with this matter, they could pay off the deficit and have plenty more to spend on public services?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The calculations made by economists and accountants, such as Mr Murphy, reflect the cost to our Exchequer of international profit shifting, which the Government’s estimate of the tax gap does not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

As always, my right hon. and learned Friend hits the nail on the head. There is no substitute for hard, detailed work. Ultimately, it is a game of cat and mouse, because those who seek to avoid tax will be ever more inventive. It requires detailed work to ensure that the loopholes are closed, and the Government are absolutely committed to that task. The Bill shows that and I am happy to support it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I shall speak briefly. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on her excellent Front-Bench speech.

Early in his speech, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) talked about morality. There is morality in paying tax: we cannot have a civilised society without people paying tax to pay for public services and income being redistributed from those who have more than they need to those who have less than they need.

The crisis in 2008 and the problem of tax avoidance and evasion, overseas tax havens and so on, all arose as a result of Geoffrey Howe’s disastrous decision in 1979 to abolish exchange controls immediately. That led to the crisis and the massive flows of money across national boundaries around the world, causing all sorts of problems. Even the then Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, suggested to the Treasury Committee at the time of the 2008 crisis that if things got really bad, we might have had to reintroduce exchange controls. I am not suggesting that I will be able to persuade the Government to do that at this stage, but in time we are going to have to look at how we manage the vast flows of money across national boundaries around the world. It is the bankers who are the crooks—not the good bankers who look after our ordinary accounts, but those who gamble with money and often worthless bits of paper on the foreign exchanges.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham talked about morality. Millions of ordinary people in this country do have a very moral sense. Many of them, including me—I am very well paid compared with ordinary people—say that they would pay a bit more tax if they could guarantee that the money went to the health service and to people who are less well off than themselves. At the same time, the mega rich, the corporates and the bankers are resisting any kind of constraint on their activities. I see where the morality lies: it lies with decent ordinary people, not with bankers. We must constrain those bankers somehow and have serious measures that will actually have the effect of stopping the tax avoidance and tax evasion that has bedevilled our society for so long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

This Government are committed to bearing down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance like no other Government in history. While I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Minister, and I respect the spirited nature of her attack on our record, I am afraid she is misguided.

We have a strong record. We have brought in and protected £160 billion of potentially avoided tax since 2010 as a result of over 100 measures that we have brought in. We have, as we have heard in the debate, one of the lowest tax gaps in the entire world, at just 6%. Contrary to some of the suggestions from those on the Labour Benches, that is a robust and firm figure; it is described by the IMF as one of the most robust in the world. It is, indeed, produced by HMRC, but it is produced to strict guidelines set out by the Office for National Statistics.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The Minister mentioned HMRC. One of the things the Government have done over many years now is to squeeze HMRC, which has fewer offices and not enough staff. Does he not accept that every single additional tax officer collects many times their own salary? If the Government were serious about tax collection, they would expand HMRC substantially.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman may know that, in the last Budget, £155 million was set aside to be invested in HMRC, for exactly the activity that he has described. That is expected to bring in £4.8 billion through a further reduction in tax avoidance over the forecast period.

The other point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that HMRC’s effectiveness is not all about having lots of regional offices staffed with tax inspectors. Tax is collected today using sophisticated intelligence-led and data-led techniques. We need to invest in that if we are to continue to achieve the outstanding results we are achieving at the moment.

We have borne down with penalties for developers and enablers of tax avoidance schemes. On the international side, our country has been in the vanguard of the base erosion and profit shifting project. We now have over 100 countries involved in common reporting standards, so HMRC can access information in real time to bear down on non-compliance in those jurisdictions. We have introduced new measures in this Budget in relation to clamping down on the abuse of overseas trusts. Since 2010, we have brought in £2.8 billion in additional revenues as a consequence of clamping down on the activities of UK residents hiding their wealth inappropriately in overseas trusts.

We have, of course, been the Government that abolished permanent non-dom status. I have to disagree, I am afraid, with the hon. Member for Oxford East, who suggested that if someone’s parents were non-domiciled, that in some way suggests that that person would not be subject to the rules we have brought in. That is simply not the case. If someone has been resident for 15 of the previous 20 years, they will be deemed domiciled, irrespective of who their parents happen to be.

New clause 8 suggests we should have yet another assessment. We have heard consistently in all the debates we have had on the Floor of the House on this Bill about having more and more assessments, but I would say to Opposition Members that we already have a robust figure for the tax gap. As I have said, it has been described by the IMF as one of the most robust in the world, and we certainly do not need even more information out there to prove just how successful this Government have been in bearing down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance.

However, as a consequence of this Bill, we will go even further than we have to date. Clause 38 relates to online VAT fraud, and we will make online platforms jointly and severally liable where VAT avoidance occurs, extending that approach from overseas sellers to domestic sellers, and ensuring that they are responsible for supplying accurate and appropriate VAT information on their sites. That will raise £1 billion by 2023.

Clauses 11 and 12 will complete our work on disguised remuneration, and bearing down on that will have brought in £3.6 billion by 2019, when we will be closing down on those schemes.

Clause 42 ensures that where there is illegal landfill activity, we apply the tax that would have been in place had those activities been legal, bringing in a further £145 million. There are also the changes brought in by clauses 20 and 21 to address avoidance involving intellectual property within companies.

This Government have a record that is second to none when it comes to clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. Labour had 13 years in which to implement such measures, and did very little. In fact, the tax gap under the previous Labour Government was such that if we had it today, we would be over £12 billion short every single year—enough to fund every policeman and woman in England and Wales. We will continue to bear down, as appropriate and with vigour, on tax evasion and avoidance to ensure a fair and civilised society where those who are due to pay their fair share do so, to support our public services. I urge the Committee to reject new clause 8.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The Budget set out an ambitious plan to tackle the housing challenge—a plan that will raise housing supply by the end of this Parliament to its highest level since the 1970s. However, the Government also recognise that we need to act now to help young people who are trying to get on to the housing ladder. This Bill therefore introduces a permanent relief in stamp duty land tax for first-time buyers, which I will turn to shortly. Alongside that, I will also cover clauses 8 and 40, which respectively introduce an income tax exemption for accommodation payments made to members of the armed forces and make minor changes to the higher rates of stamp duty land tax.

Home ownership among young people has been falling. Today, the average house in London costs almost 12 times average earnings, nearly 10 times average earnings in the south-east and more than eight times average earnings in the east.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the only solution to the housing crisis is to build millions more houses, not to pump demand into the demand side, which just pushes up prices in the end?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We announced plans in the Budget along the exact lines that he has suggested in order to free up the supply side and to increase supply to 300,000 units by the mid-2020s. In the last 12 months, we have achieved 217,000 new builds, so we are on our way, although it will take time. He is quite right that the supply side matters.

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, which I will answer in order.

The purpose of APD is clearly, as the hon. Lady identified and as I explained in my opening remarks, to raise revenue—£3.1 billion in this instance. Like all taxes, it will also change behaviour to some degree, and to the extent that it makes flying a little bit more expensive, it could be expected to have the effect of diminishing demand for air travel. The lower rates for economy, which takes up more space on aircraft than first class, assist in ensuring that flights are as full as they can be.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Scottish Parliament and the devolution of APD, which will become air departure tax in Scotland. That tax has not yet been switched on, although devolution arrangements are in place, and we will of course monitor the issues that she has understandably raised in respect of competition with airports, particularly in the north of England. On long-haul flights and the impact on various groups, including ethnic minorities, I would be happy to write to the hon. Lady with any information that we have.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Minister has raised the question of ethnic minorities. My constituency has a large Caribbean community, who are concerned about air passenger duty’s effect on flights to the Caribbean to see family and so on. Has the Minister received any specific representations on that? The other question, of course, is about the airlines themselves. In Luton, we have London Luton airport. What representations have the airlines made to the Minister?

[Mel Stride]

If I may, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific questions that he has raised about the consultation on these measures.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Petroleum revenue tax: elections for oil fields to become non-taxable

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again this morning, Mr Howarth. When I first entered this House over 20 years ago, I visited my local VAT office and they said that if they had more VAT officers they could collect many more times their own salaries. That has been the case ever since. I am not so familiar with third country goods fulfilment businesses, but it nevertheless strikes me as something that requires a proper resource within the VAT component of HMRC. I wonder whether we are still understaffing VAT offices and whether we could collect much more by employing more staff. At that time, the ratio between the staff salary and the tax they collected was about 5:1. Every additional member of the VAT staff produced five times more than their own salary. If that is still the case today—it may be an even bigger ratio—it would be helpful to think about employing more staff.

[Mel Stride]

Clauses 48 to 59 and schedule 13 implement the fulfilment house due diligence scheme. The scheme will require that from 1 April 2018, fulfilment businesses in the UK that fulfil goods for traders based outside the EU must register with HMRC, keep certain records, and carry out robust due diligence checks on their overseas clients.

The fulfilment house due diligence scheme is part of a package of measures announced at Budget 2016 that will disrupt and deter VAT abuse by overseas traders who sell goods to UK consumers via online markets. To address the point raised by the hon. Member for Luton North, the measure is not one that requires lots of extra inspectors; it requires a different attitude and regime for the fulfilment houses that are facilitating this VAT fraud. We expect it to be effective in those terms, rather than needing large numbers of additional staff.

Together, these measures are expected to deliver £875 million for the Exchequer by 2021. Many overseas traders selling via online marketplaces import their goods en masse to fulfilment houses in the UK, in readiness to fulfil anticipated future orders from UK customers. Once imported, the fulfilment house businesses will store, pack and sometimes deliver these goods on their behalf. Currently, certain overseas traders do not comply with the obligation to charge VAT on their goods held at UK fulfilment houses, as the hon. Member for Luton North pointed out. This not only deprives the UK Government of a significant amount of revenue but allows these overseas traders to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over the honest majority of VAT-compliant businesses operating in our country.

Clauses 48 to 59 and schedule 13 implement the fulfilment house due diligence scheme. Clause 48 sets out that all UK fulfilment houses that fulfil goods owned by traders established outside the European Union will be within the scope of the new scheme. These are referred to throughout the legislation as “third country goods fulfilment businesses”.

Clause 49 sets out that, following commencement of the scheme, all third country goods fulfilment businesses in the UK will require approval from HMRC as a “fit and proper” person in order to continue operating legally.

Clause 50 outlines that HMRC will maintain a register of all such approved persons. It will publish such details from the register as it deems necessary to allow counterparties, such as those in the express deliveries industry, to check whether they are dealing with a compliant fulfilment business.

Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

I welcome the opportunity to debate amendment 43, which proposes a review of the exercise of HMRC’s data-governing powers in relation to MSBs no later than September 2020, with a particular focus on the number of appeals in relation to data holder notices. As I have said, MSBs can appeal against a data notice issued by HMRC if it is unduly onerous, or if it asks for data that are outside the scope of the relevant regulations. Therefore, there is already a mechanism in place for independent scrutiny through a tribunal, whose records are already available to the public. In addition, this measure has already involved consultation and engagement with the relevant sector. Proportionality has been a key consideration, and HMRC will work closely with MSBs to ensure that requirements are reasonable and to minimise the burden and the cost, so there are already adequate safeguards in place, and a review is not necessary. I therefore ask the Opposition to withdraw amendment 43.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I want to respond briefly to what the Minister said. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mr Walker, possibly for the last time during this Committee.

I have always had a concern about the money service industry, particularly since many of my constituents send money to family members overseas. There are large immigrant minorities from every part of the world in my constituency. Some of the transactions have been insecure—we have seen companies where money has been lost, and I have long thought that there ought to be a much higher degree of regulation of that industry.

There is obviously an issue around charges. I suspect that charges vary widely and are often very high. It seems to me that what we really want is at least a state company doing this business, either instead of or alongside these organisations, which would be properly regulated, have fair charges, and be open and transparent, apart from personal secure information about transactions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle talked about. Bringing the state actively into that area would be a great advance. Perhaps I speak from a left position that might not find favour with the Government, but we ought to look forward to a much more regulated industry with a strong state sector in the future.

[Mel Stride]

To reply briefly to the hon. Gentleman’s point: the issue of MSB ownership and state involvement is probably slightly beyond the scope of this Bill, but his points are noted. If he continues to work very hard, who knows what might happen? Much to our horror and dread, the state may end up owning just about everything in this country, if he and his merry men and women have their way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am conscious that several members of the Committee may wish to take part in the emergency debate on universal credit—a subject close to many of our hearts—so I do not intend to speak for a long time. However, we ought to get value for money out of these Committee sittings and, indeed, this Bill, so I hope that my new clause gives the Government some ideas about how we can solve the pressing problem of the public finances and the lack of funding.

Government Members often argue that Labour only wants to spend money, but my proposals very much seek to save money for the country. Indeed, they present a way to protect UK taxpayers and British businesses, generate potentially billions for the Exchequer, and address the pressures on the housing market. I am sure that none of us would want to lay claim to the magic money tree, but I believe that my new clause would provide for a concrete cash cow in which the Government could invest, and I hope to convince Ministers and Government Back Benchers to support it.

The new clause relates to a proposal by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am not sure how many jobs he has now, but he is currently the editor of the Evening Standard—about the way in which capital gains tax was applied to property sales.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am interested in the former Chancellor and how many jobs he has. It is particularly interesting to learn how much he is being paid for those jobs.

[Stella Creasy]

I am afraid that I do not have that figure to hand, but I do have figures relating to the amount of money that the new clause could raise for the public Exchequer. I hope that my hon. Friend will be as pleased with and as interested in those numbers as I am.

Historically, only UK residents or those with a permanent UK base have been subject to capital gains tax. In April 2013 that was changed to include the disposals of UK dwellings owned by non-resident companies, partnerships and collective investment schemes, which were subject to an annual tax on enveloped dwellings. In April 2015 that was extended to all non-UK residents disposing of UK residential property, and the critical point is that that was about residential property. The argument that non-doms should be paying capital gains tax on the disposal of property was put forward by the previous, and indeed current, Government. The question is: why did they make it apply only to residential properties? As I hope to prove, that has created a loophole through which some people have chosen to put their properties.

We are talking about a rate of tax that is between 18% and 28%, or 20% for corporates. The standard OECD double tax treaty expressly preserves the right of countries to tax non-residents on capital gains from the disposal of local real estate. Many of us will have seen at first hand in our communities the impact of this country’s over-inflated housing market and the connection between the residential and the commercial property market. The Adam Smith Institute reckons that there are 1 million non-doms in the UK, although only 110,000 are declared. Those people are part of our communities, but they are benefitting from an advantageous tax position because of this loophole.

The Bill tries to address issues relating to inheritance tax and holding property through UK companies, so the Government are interested in where people might be using companies to avoid paying tax. Indeed, that is one of the debates that we have been having. The new clause addresses another issue, which is the ability to designate a property as a commercial property to avoid paying the residential charge that this Government introduced in 2015. We know that that is hitting UK companies competing with non-UK companies. In tabling this new clause, I am making a plea to the Minister to be on the side of British businesses that are being unfairly treated in our tax system. We know that people set up property holding companies to avoid those charges. By changing the loophole, we would be able to apply the charge fairly across the board. Indeed, it has to be asked why anybody would hold UK real estate through a foreign company except for tax purposes.

The Minister might say that this about a competitive tax advantage for the UK. Let me reassure him that almost nowhere else in the world exempts foreigners from tax on selling real estate. By closing the loophole, we would simply bring ourselves into line with Canada, Australia and indeed the rest of Europe. The Minister may claim that there are anti-avoidance rules that would take precedence, but if a non-resident company operates in the UK through a UK permanent establishment, the disposal will be subject to UK capital gains tax. That is not the requirement we are talking about; we are talking about organisations that hold property in the UK through offshore companies and designate that property as commercial property. It is the difference between the residential and the commercial that we need to deal with in terms of this loophole.

Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

That is a very good point. It is also actually creating an awful lot of work for us, given the amount of times we have asked for this to be dealt with. It is getting pretty repetitive. I do not know how many times we have to ask for this to be dealt with once and for all; no doubt we will come back to it time and again until something is sorted out.

This is not only about non-doms using offshore trusts to hide their money and essentially subvert the measures in the clause; it is about the source of the money and its value, particularly when we are discussing how to clamp down on tax avoidance. The Government should consider a register of offshore trusts, ensuring that non-doms have to register the sources of their property and income. Again, that request is not unreasonable to the public or to our constituents who elect and send us to this place, all of whom have to register the sources of their income with HMRC. In fact, a number of the measures in the Bill will require even more financial information to be passed on to HMRC through the bulk collection of financial data by third parties. It seems to many people that there is one law for one group and another for the rest of us. That cannot be right.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The issue of non-dom taxation has been going on for years. The reality is that Conservative Governments and perhaps even Labour Governments have not gone far enough to eliminate the problem by saying that these people are going to pay tax properly and not wriggle all the time. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to get rid of a world where rich people live in Monaco in the south of France and fly in a couple of times a week in their private planes, working in the City and making billions, just to avoid tax, and that we should be making sure they pay their taxes and be looking after ordinary people?

[Peter Dowd]

What we need is a fair taxation system—that is the key. I do not think it is beyond the wit of this Government or any Government, for that matter, to deal with that. That is not to say that we have not moved some. That would not be appropriate. We have moved on.

Finance Bill (Third sitting)

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments. The not-for-profit model that was set up when I was a local councillor, which built schools in Aberdeen, was significantly better than some of the previous rental models. Perhaps that was just because Aberdeen was particularly diligent with the not-for-profit model that it chose specifically for its schools funding project.

As I have said, I am concerned about the effect the amendments might have on the projects in Scotland that were put in place under the previous Scottish Executive. The SNP Scottish Government have been very clear that the old PFI models are not the way to go and that they are incredibly burdensome for the public purse. Although there is a shiny new building, quite often they saddle the public purse with repayments for a very long time, which can amount to much more than the original cost of the building. There is also less flexibility, because the rules of the private sector organisation have to be abided by.

I agree with the concerns raised about PFI models and that we should not use them. The SNP Scottish Government have recognised that and are using initiatives such as the Scottish Futures Trust, which has delivered a significant amount of funding, savings and benefits to the people of Scotland. As I have said, we support new clause 1 because we do not agree with PFI models and think that it is completely reasonable to reconsider them, but we do not support the Labour party’s other amendments.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Rather than speak specifically to the amendment, I want to make a comment. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has raised some very important issues about PFI, but from the beginning it has been an outrageous rip-off of the public purse and the citizens of this country. It should be abandoned. Indeed, in his speech at our party conference, the shadow Chancellor suggested that we should take PFI contracts into public ownership, saving billions for the public purse over time. That is what I want. I have spoken against, voted against and written a chapter of a book against PFI, because it is utterly ridiculous and total nonsense. It is driven by ideology to try to drive as much of the public sector as possible into the private sector. That is what PFI is really about: it puts vast sums of public money into rich private pockets. I will pursue that view vigorously over the next few years.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

It is once again a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Before I respond specifically to the amendments tabled by Opposition Members, I will set out the aims of the Bill and some details of how it will work.

Clause 20 and schedule 5 introduce new rules to limit the amount of interest expense and similar financing costs that a corporate group can deduct against its taxable profits. Interest is a deductible expense in the calculation of profit subject to corporation tax. Therefore, there is a risk of groups borrowing excessively in the United Kingdom, with the resulting deductions for interest expense eroding the UK tax base.

The new rules are part of the Government’s wider changes to align the location of taxable profits with the location of economic activity. The rules follow the internationally agreed recommendations from the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, project to tackle tax avoidance by multinational companies. The rules aim to prevent businesses from reducing their taxable profits by using a disproportionate amount of interest expense in the UK.

The schedule introduces a new part into the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 and will raise about £1 billion a year from multinational enterprises and other large companies. The rules take effect from 1 April 2017, as announced in the business tax road map published in 2016 and reconfirmed at the spring Budget this year. Maintaining that commencement date ensures that groups that have already made changes in light of the new rules are not unfairly disadvantaged and that there is no delay in protecting the UK tax base. Given the sophisticated nature of corporate finance, the rules are detailed and technical. However, the core effect of the rules, which aim to match deductions with taxable profits, is relatively simple.

All groups will be able to deduct £2 million in net interest expense a year, so only larger businesses—those with financing costs above that level—can suffer a restriction. Above that threshold, the core rules will restrict interest deductions to a proportion of the group’s UK earnings or the net external expense of the group, whichever is lower. I will discuss the rules in further detail.

First, the fixed ratio rule will limit interest deductions to 30% of the company’s taxable EBITDA—earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation. Secondly, the modified debt cap will limit interest deductions to the net external interest expense of the worldwide group; this rule is consistent with the recommendation in the OECD BEPS report. There are provisions to ensure that the rules will not adversely affect groups that are highly leveraged with third-party debt for genuine commercial reasons. Thirdly, the group ratio rule will allow groups to increase their deductions if their UK borrowing does not exceed a fair proportion of the external borrowing of the worldwide group. In addition, there are public infrastructure rules that provide an alternative but equally effective approach for companies that are highly leveraged because they own and manage public infrastructure assets.

The Bill provides rules to help address fluctuations in levels of net interest expense and EBITDA. Amounts of restricted interest are carried forward indefinitely and may be deducted in a later period if there is a sufficient allowance. Unused interest allowance can also be carried forward, for up to five years.

The Bill introduces additional provisions to ensure that the rules work for certain types of business, such as banks and insurers, joint ventures, securitisation vehicles and real estate investment trusts. There are also rules to deal with particular issues including related parties; leases; payments to charities; the oil and gas tax regime; incentives such as the patent box and research and development tax credits; and double taxation relief. Given the technical nature of the Bill, we need to deal with a wide range of corporate arrangements. We will, as always, continue to keep their detailed implementation under review.

I welcome the opportunity to debate amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. Amendments 5 and 6 propose a review within three months of Royal Assent on the effect of the provisions contained in the new chapter 8 proposed by the schedule on companies with PFI contracts. Legislating for a review of the rules within three months is unnecessary. The Government have already undertaken extensive work and consultation on the issue over the past 18 months. We will continue to monitor the impact of the legislation, and Government officials continue to meet key stakeholders impacted by the rules in the chapter.

Proposed new chapter 8 includes the public infrastructure rules designed to ensure that companies holding public infrastructure assets are not disproportionately affected by the corporate interest restriction. In particular, proposed new section 439 of chapter 8 contains a grandfathering provision for loans entered into by certain companies on or before 12 May 2016. Such companies are highly leveraged as part of their standard business model, given their fixed assets and fixed income flows. The grandfathering ensures that investors who entered into contracts to provide Government services in good faith are not unfairly impacted. That could be the case where the additional tax expense was not factored into original funding models and there is no scope to pass on any of the cost. Given that PFI projects are long-term in nature and provide many of our vital public services, the rules grandfather the treatment of interest payable to related parties to the extent that the loan was agreed prior to the publication, on 12 May 2016, of detailed proposals for the interest restriction rules.

[Mel Stride]

With respect to the hon. Lady, I do not think I said that I had met all the stakeholders, but as part of their ongoing work in this area officials naturally meet a large range of officials. If she is keen to know exactly who they are and what types of companies, I would be happy to ask my officials to write to her with that information.

The hon. Lady also proposes a new clause, which would require a review within three months of Royal Assent of how tax relief is given for losses, deficits, expenses and other amounts in relation to PFI companies. PFI companies do not obtain any special treatment under the tax rules in the way that losses, deficits, expenses and other amounts are treated. Legislating for a review of these rules in three months is unnecessary. As we debated on Tuesday, the Government have already undertaken extensive work on the treatment of losses and deficits over the past 18 months and through extensive consultation. The Government will continue to monitor the legislation’s impact, and officials continue to meet key stakeholders impacted by the rules in this chapter.

I turn now to some of the more general and specific points that the hon. Lady has raised. In doing so, I should acknowledge the important contribution she has made over a long period in Parliament on the important issues surrounding PFI. She is right to point out that PFI contracts are the creatures of many different Governments. It would be widely accepted that many of the issues that have arisen, and to which she and other Members have alluded, certainly occurred under the watch of the previous Labour Government. She rightly points out that not all of those contracts are perfect. That is evidenced by the fact that this Government have secured a rebate of about £2.5 billion by working with the private sector and raising funds through that approach.

We have had a general discussion about PFI, and proposed chapter 8 gives rise to the question whether PFI infrastructure projects should be treated differently from other projects that would otherwise be subject to the interest restriction. I have two important points to make. First, these are infrastructure projects, so they are, by their very nature, highly leveraged. They are projects where large amounts of interest are often part of the natural, right and proper, way in which they are constructed.

The second point, which in a sense follows from that, is that of proportionality. To what degree does one apply this kind of approach to a business of that particular nature, given that the downstream revenues from PFI arrangements cannot be easily adjusted to accommodate the provisions that would otherwise apply in the Bill?

The hon. Lady raised two specific points. One was related to the Green Book calculations. In 2012 we set up the operational efficiency programme to deliver savings from existing programmes. That brought in £2.5 billion. We also introduced the new PF2 model, to offer better value for money and greater transparency in the operation of these arrangements.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Rather than having another elaborate PFI system, would it not be simpler, in the health service and in the education sector, to build by traditional public borrowing, which is extremely cheap and would save billions for the taxpayer?

[Mel Stride]

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that is probably a little out of scope of the issues being dealt with in the Bill. I make the point that his party is committed to bringing a lot of these back in, as it has described. That is a fine idea in principle, but it will cost a huge amount of money and there has been no suggestion from his party as to how it would be raised, what taxes will have to be raised as a consequence, or what additional borrowing will have to occur in order to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Be under no illusions, Mr Howarth; I intend very much to speak to the amendments at hand.

The Minister argued, slightly bizarrely, that we already have information about whether the changes would affect PFI companies, because the Government have been able to assess that, yet they are rejecting our call to put that information in the public domain. The Minister said clearly that his officials have met PFI companies, and I asked him to clarify which companies. I hope that when he meets stakeholders he will meet my local hospital, which is dealing with the difficult consequences of PFI deals for its financial position. I would argue that officials who are essentially having to sack nurses to pay back PFI loans are equally stakeholders, so I would be interested to know whether he has met any of them.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Does my hon. Friend have a figure for the total cost of PFI repayments every year to the national health service? That would illustrate the enormous burden of PFI schemes on our health service.

[Stella Creasy]

I can go better than that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Which is a shame, I have to say.

The Minister referred to consultation. Consultation about what we want to do in the future, what people would like to see from the relief and how it might operate is in advance of the implementation. We consult, and we think this or that is a good idea, but it is also important to find out whether the relief has had the effect that the consultation wanted to achieve. One of the only ways to establish whether the consultation and the implementation have been effective is a review, and that is what we seek. If we are to have these reliefs, we must review whether they are doing the job they are supposed to do. The amendment is fairly simple in that regard.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I support what my hon. Friend said, and I hope Members will support the amendment and that it will be successful. I have a brief comment to make.

In my ideal world, we would fund museums and the rich cultural heritage we have not through tax reliefs but by direct funding. We would collect all the tax and then pay it to museums and galleries directly through local authority and national funding and by specific grants where necessary. There would, of course, be charitable and private donations as well, but the great bulk of it would be in the public sector. I hope we can look towards a world where we have direct public funding, rather than a complex jungle of tax reliefs, and collect all the tax and forget about the tax reliefs.

[The Chair]

The hon. Gentleman has a tendency in this Committee to lead us down paths beyond the scope of the amendments he addresses. That being a matter of broadening our cultural horizons, I have been very lenient with him, but I hope he will in future stick to the matter at hand.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The extent, nature and quality of advice received by a person wanting a pension is of great importance and significance. That is particularly the case considering that, in 2017, 30% of the working age population is at state pension age or older. The Department for Work and Pensions recently summarised perfectly the importance of pensions advice on its website:

“For most people in the UK, their pension savings will be their largest financial asset, which they will save towards over the course of their working lives”.

That gets to the nub of the matter. Hopefully, most of us will be saving towards a pension for the majority of our lives and we are ultimately relying on that to secure a good-quality standard of living when we retire. Therefore, the advice received matters a great deal.

For many, the securing of pension advice is, given the nature of their employment, for example, not as problematic. People who work in certain sectors, such as the finance sector, on the whole will find that their companies automatically cover pension advice. For others, the cost of such advice is minimal in the grand scheme of things. However, it has to be said that, for those who do not have much disposable cash and whose retirement is dependent on making wise investments with their pensions and ensuring that they save the right amount, good-quality advice is the key to a more secure retirement. I am sure that that will be greeted with unanimous nodding from Government members, if nothing else.

As Committee members know, the financial advice market review was launched in August 2015

“to explore ways in which government, industry and regulators could take individual and collective steps to stimulate the development of a market that delivers affordable and accessible financial advice and guidance to everyone.”

That is a laudable endeavour if ever there was one. It set out a strong and compelling case that there is a retirement “advice gap” for those without significant wealth. Research by Unbiased, an organisation of Financial Conduct Authority-regulated advisers who are independent of product providers, found that those who sought retirement advice increased their retirement savings by an average of £98 a month. However, less than one third of people have accessed financial advice on their pension. The financial advice market review found that many people perceived financial advice to be unaffordable or “not for people” like them.

The advice gap is not getting any smaller. Although the introduction of the exemption for the first £500-worth of pensions advice to employees is welcome, particularly as it replaces the provisions that limited the advice that people could receive—the cap was set at £150—we think that that does not go far enough. Most people in the pension advice sector would reasonably point out that £500-worth of tax-free advice is a relatively small figure given the importance of the decisions that people face. There are genuine questions to be asked about the impact that such a figure will have on the current pensions advice gap and, importantly, on the quality of that advice.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the affordability of pensions advice, but the trustworthiness of pensions advice is also an issue. Even I—I am fairly numerate—do not trust the advice I am given, although fortunately the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority gives better advice than most. Many ordinary people not only think that it is not for the likes of them and are rather nervous, but fear that they are not given correct and disinterested advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

We all agree that the current model of legal expenses or indemnity insurance for employees is wholly inadequate to the modern workplace. It is worth getting a plug in here in relation to the household insurance that people have for when they wish to defend their position in court, whether criminal or civil. I have experience of some of these policies not being fit for purpose. That goes to the heart of some of these issues, although it is not directly related. I am sure that other Members have had people come to them with insurance policies that they bought thinking they would cover them for this, that or the other, only to find that they are not fit for purpose. It is worth this Committee sending the message out that some of those policies are not up to scratch.

Getting back to the point, under the current system, only an employee who has had an allegation made against them can claim for legal expenses, which will be deducted from their earnings. Potentially, if a person is called as a witness at a public hearing, he or she will immediately be put out of pocket for any legal expenses. Similarly, if an employee is to give evidence at a public hearing, perhaps in one of our Committee Rooms in this building, under the current system they will be out of pocket if they need legal counsel. That is a deterrent to both employee and employer. The measure would tidy up and expand the current, rather vague, provision to cover employees giving evidence at public hearings, which we welcome; however, I have a number of questions.

How many employers will the new measure cover? Will it cover all employers? How extensive is it? Are any particular sectors affected by the measure? What is the estimated cost of such a measure to the Exchequer? Does the measure include cover for employment tribunals? That has been a bone of contention in the past few months, in the light of the Government’s introduction of quite significant fees for people making employment tribunal claims.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is evidence that thousands of people have been deterred from bringing a case to employment tribunals simply because of the fees.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why it is important to tease out the issues. People get confused and deeply worried about these matters, so we need clarity.

Our concern is that the measure will, in essence, be used as a tax break for employers, to the detriment of employees. I am not saying that that is the intention, but it is important to get clarity. Given the lack of detail, we believe that a review of the impact of the changes on the coverage of legal expenses is in order. It would focus specifically on the effectiveness of the measure, the value of the relief and, of course, how many employers and employees it brings within its purview. I reaffirm the point: it is important that this area is clarified and that people know the direction of travel, which is why we moved the amendment, to keep tabs on the proposal.