Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that; it is one of my concluding points. I know that other Members are of the same opinion. Yes, the maximum stake should be lowered; then we could manage the issue, so that people are not deprived.

The regulation of FOBTs is out of kilter, as I have said. The only material restriction is the four machines per shop. We have seen an increase nationally in the number of betting shops in town centres, and last year the Government stepped in and imposed a £50 staking threshold on fixed odds betting terminals, above which players are required to identify themselves to staff or sign up for a loyalty card. The objective of this measure is to help players stay in control. I suggest that that has not happened. The measure is non-evidence-based and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport failed to quantify what impact it would have on players other than the £17 million reduction—1%—in bookmaker revenue from the machines. Secondary research based on the British gambling prevalence survey 2010 estimates that up to 40% of B2 revenue comes from at-risk and pathologically addicted players—higher than all other combined gambling activities—so the Government predicted very little impact. There is also evidence that bookmakers are using the player registration as a mechanism to market FOBTs further.

An evaluation of the DCMS assessment of the £50 measure so far, carried out by Landman Economics, highlighted issues with the quality of the data provided by the bookmakers; it also noted that DCMS could not assess changes in staking, mentioned the absence of a pilot scheme so that the measure could be evaluated better, and noted that the evaluation omitted key questions that it is important to consider when looking at the success or failure of the £50 regulations. For example, the question why fixed odds betting terminal machine players might wish to remain anonymous is not discussed. Despite the Government measure, players are still able to stake up to £100 per spin, and it appears that bookmakers are using the change as an opportunity to further market products to vulnerable gamblers. Even £50 is still materially out of kilter in the normal gambling world.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the issue is also about making sure that players can make a genuinely informed choice? If a sign was required to be displayed that said, “A machine of this type made on average £825 a week in profit for its owners in 2012”, would people be inclined to gamble on it? In short, it would be a bet not worth having.

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wise words.

I am conscious that many people want to speak, Sir Alan. I gave you an undertaking that I would not speak for too long, but I want to set the scene, and then I will give other Members an opportunity to participate.

The Government must take urgent action to regulate fixed odds betting terminals and reduce the stake that can be gambled from £100. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) referred to £2; I think that many in this House would be happy with that. This is the only way effectively to tackle the growing problems that these machines are inflicting on our communities and on those who can least afford it. The Minister responsible for gambling has said that the Government want to reduce the stake for FOBTs, so let us hear what the reduction will be. A substantially lower stake would bring fixed odds betting terminals into line with machines in other low-supervision environments such as adult gaming centres and bingo halls.

The Gambling Commission has said that if staking levels were being set now, it would advise against the £100 stake on a precautionary basis. The previous Government said that a lower stake would bring adequate public protection. The Government should take this opportunity to control the gaming machines and the stakes and reduce significantly the numbers of shops and machines on the high street. The evidence is out there and is clear: the bookies are in the wrong. They are on the wrong side of the argument, and it is our job to put it right.

I want to say one quick thing in relation to Scotland, as hon. Members from Scotland are here. The Bill in Scotland gives some control to the Scottish Parliament, but if we were to bring forward a private Member’s Bill in this House to legislate for change, this debate today would be the first stage in that process. If that happens, that will filter its way out to Scotland and to Northern Ireland as well. We in this House today have the opportunity at least to start the first stage of that process. I believe that many in this House—seven out of 10 MPs—wish for that to happen.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). Although there are probably some things we would disagree on, there are a couple of issues on which we do agree. One is that it is welcome that we are having this debate on the Floor of the House today. The other is the fear that the next tax haven to be listed—this time it would affect ordinary working people—might be England if the Scottish Labour party gets its way after the elections this May and makes tax rates for working people higher there than they are south of the border.

It is always good, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to be discussing on the Floor of the House how we get in the tax that is owed. During Prime Minister’s Question Time, I think I heard the Leader of the Opposition refer to tax as partly a donation. I can understand why he said that, but let us be clear: a donation is something people voluntarily give to a charity, as I do out of my salary; a tax is a legal requirement to pay something—it is not a donation or an act of charity.

As a member of the Committee, I sat on our recent inquiry into Google, which is perhaps one of the cases that has helped to prompt the debate on this issue over the last few months. We focused a lot on some of the offshore locations, but we also had references to things such as the “double Irish” and the “Dutch sandwich”, which helped to reduce the company’s tax liability. Neither of those relates to offshore territories; they both involve jurisdictions that are members of the EU. It is therefore important that, as we work across the world to try to deal with tax evasion and avoidance, we make sure that other nation states give these issues the attention they deserve. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am sorry to disturb the hon. Gentleman, but there is quite a lot of chattering going on, and I am finding it quite difficult to hear him.

[Kevin Foster]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In its report, the Committee was clear that HMRC should try to lead a debate about openness and tax rules. In that instance, the issue was revenues and the discussion of information with HMRC. It is easy to grandstand in such debates, but it is important to have not a knee-jerk reaction, but a considered debate about what information is available publicly, because there cannot just be specific rules for individual companies. If we change our general principle of not discussing individual taxpayer data, there are obviously some pitfalls to that, as well as some potential benefits, as we see when we look at deals such as the one with Google. However, the Committee felt that HMRC could lead a debate on that.

The report summarises some of the issues involved in judging whether the Google deal was the best deal that could have been done. It is worth noting, however, that the debate was based on previous tax rules, not today’s tax rules; effectively, we were having a debate about things as they existed some years ago—in some cases, 11 years back, when many Members sitting here today were not actually in the House—and about laws that have, in many cases, changed.

What came out of the Committee’s discussion is that HMRC’s performance is being looked at more widely, and the Committee regularly looks at it. It is encouraging to see some of the figures that have been published on the reduction of the tax gap—not least the corporation tax gap, which has gone from 14% to 7%. That is welcome. Yes, there is more we can do to drive down that 7%, but it is far better to be talking about 7% than 14%.

As has been referred to in the debate, the tax haven where a hedge fund manager could pay as low a tax rate as the person who cleaned their office was the UK six years ago. I have always felt that tackling that was one of the best things done under the coalition Government, because it seemed innately unfair that someone sitting within a few miles of this building could use capital gains tax rules to pay a low rate on a substantial income—indeed, a lower rate than a person earning the minimum wage for cleaning their office.

Having had discussions with Anguilla’s Public Accounts Committee recently, I welcome a number of things about HMRC’s having the ability to get information from, and share information with, the Crown dependencies. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee East that we should be as diligent in handing information to tax authorities in developing countries via such information-sharing arrangements as we are in using information to enforce our own tax system. I suspect there will always be a debate about exactly what information we share with countries with more repressive regimes, but where the line is purely about avoiding taxation, we should be prepared to co-operate, provided that there are assurances about the standards that will be applied afterwards as part of investigations under the relevant nation’s criminal justice system.

In terms of how the Government and the UK engage with these authorities, it is worth bearing in mind that some of the regulations involved are very complex. There is perhaps a debate to be had about the fact that we currently appoint governors, who effectively act as the Head of State, for three years, with their term being extendable to four. There is perhaps a debate to be had with Foreign Office colleagues about whether it would make more sense to have a longer appointment, to allow governors to build a relationship with the authorities in a country; to build a knowledge of the system there; and to be able to engage more, and to give difficult messages, on behalf of the UK, in a way that a three-year term perhaps does not allow.

We should be clear that being a governor is not about going round in a feathered hat being saluted by everyone; it should be about being part of building a strong and lasting bond between the UK and territories that look to us for support, particularly in the realm of defence and overseas development. We should have people who engage with territories very strongly and who build up their governance systems, but who also have a deep knowledge of those territories and a deep relationship with them. We can then have the tougher discussions we need to have about areas where those territories are sovereign, but where their decisions have a clear impact on us as the home nation.

That said, I welcome the agreements we have managed to sign. I recognise that this is a global problem. Panama is one of the few countries not to have signed up to some of the international agreements, and one of the key issues is what further steps we take against nations that do not do that. Again, however, that should be part of a proper global debate, and we should not pick off individual jurisdictions. If we do that, people will simply find the next jurisdiction that is not honouring transparency. This needs to be a slightly wider debate than just picking on individual circumstances or an individual issue.

Likewise, we need a debate so that there is clarity, for example, about which types of investment many people use—perfectly legitimately and perfectly lawfully—in this country. We have heard of trade unions, pension funds and councils that use unit trusts and that pay their taxes here. At the same time, however, we have to open the envelope on shell companies that are basically just being used to hide who actually owns something, so that we can have that information and ensure that HMRC can get the tax it is due.

I was slightly disappointed that the opening of the debate seemed to focus more on a party political attack than on a measured discussion of how we ensure that the taxes legislated for by this Parliament are collected so that they can be spent by this Parliament. In reading the motion, I thought it was strange that there was no reference to the recent Public Accounts Committee report on the Google taxation deal. Likewise, I was disappointed that there was no reference to the tax transparency Bill—to give it a rather snappier title than its official one—introduced by a former Cabinet Minister, who is now a Labour Back Bencher. Instead, the motion seems like a party political policy document, which means it is not something I feel inclined to support.

This debate is welcome. It is safe to say that all of us recognise that there is more work to be done to capture those revenues that escape all taxation in all jurisdictions, and the UK can also play a role in building the capability of developing nations to crack down on tax avoidance that costs them even more than it costs us. This is ultimately about ensuring that those tax rates that are set here and that we believe are fair are paid. That is the nub of this debate and it must be the focus of future work.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I simply do not agree with that. I want to start by focusing on the action that has been taken, because I do not think that the anger out there is caused by a lack of action.

[Kevin Foster]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Cartlidge]

May I just make one point first, although it is lovely to have so popular a speech and so many interventions? On the action we have taken, as my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Newark (Robert Jenrick) have said, there has been a 50% fall in the corporation tax gap. I am sure that that is the sort of point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay wants to support me.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He has already been very generous with interventions. Does he agree that one of the things that really used to anger people was that an office cleaner could be paying a higher rate of tax than a hedge fund manager who worked in the same office? That was happening not in a tax haven, but here in the UK, and it is right that it was tackled.

[James Cartlidge]

That is an excellent point. It was a fundamental injustice, and we dealt with it. In the latest Budget, we announced a series of measures to tackle tax avoidance on matters such as hybrid mismatch, VAT evasion through online sales and the general anti-abuse rule. We will introduce a new penalty of 60% of tax due in all GAAR cases that are successfully tackled. We have brought in a long list of measures on matters such as serial tax avoidance and offshore avoidance.

On the broader point about the wider economics, I founded a small business in 2004—a mortgage broker specialising in the shared ownership sector—and it was obvious to me in the build-up to 2008 what was coming down the track. I believe that the then Government were trying to tackle inequality through debt. In those days, two potential homebuyers, one of whom was relatively wealthy and well educated, and the other who had less good skills and was less able to command such a salary, could both obtain similar levels of mortgage through the extraordinary measures that existed at the time, such as self-certified and sub-prime mortgages. We all know where that led.

In terms of public debt, the then Government’s main measure to deal with inequality was tax credits, which led to a £30 billion increase in in-work benefits. We paid for that increase in benefit spending on the national overdraft at a time when the country was doing pretty well and the world economy was relatively strong.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I do agree, and I note two things about what my hon. Friend says. The first is that this never happened when Labour were in government, and the second is that this could not have happened without the strong economy that this Government have built.

Many of these investments, such as the road just described by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), are long overdue. It has fallen to this Government to make improvements that could and should, as my hon. Friend says, have been made in earlier decades. That is why we must continue to make savings across the public sector.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming not only the improvements to the road links to the south-west but the money put aside for further development work on rail resilience in the south-west to ensure that in future we have a railway that works and serves our region?

[Greg Clark]

I can certainly confirm that. It is a welcome development that we are following the traditions of our Victorian predecessors with the great revival of railway building, which is so important for the south-west that my hon. Friend so ably represents.

Budget Changes

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I fear that the quality of the questions might be slightly deteriorating, but there we go. The answer is no.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister, like me, will see the slight irony in the fact that an urgent question on the Budget is delaying an announcement and a debate on the Budget. However, will he reassure me that the Government, in looking at Budget changes, will be more influenced by a long-term economic plan than by the thoughts of Chairman Mao?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted that the quality of questions has now improved.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

What does a Chancellor do when his long-term economic plan is not working? We found out today: he delivers up a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. In reality, growth is down, the debt target has been missed and borrowing is up—and, as for the surplus, who knows? I am not convinced by this Budget that the Chancellor will achieve his £10 billion surplus by 2019-20.

The Chancellor tried to dazzle us with the prospect of more infrastructure projects, when less than 10% of his present list of such developments is being built. It makes me wonder just how many energy projects, roads, rail lines and houses will be built and where the money will come from. It might be a bit innovative, but I would like the Chancellor to come to the House, at least once a year, to take us through the projects on the stocks and report on whether they will be delivered on time and on budget. That would be a worthwhile discussion to have at least once a year, because we all agree, across the House, that infrastructure, if done well, can make a major contribution to the success of our economy, including through the skills that follow on from it.

In January, I asked the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), when a decision would be made on the trans-Pennine link—a road tunnel that would create faster east-west travelling between south Yorkshire and Manchester. I am pleased that the Chancellor today announced a feasibility study, but it is fair to question how long that will take. Partners in my region, Doncaster and south Yorkshire, need to know whether there will be a guarantee of funding, a clear timetable and a swift process to confirm the exact route. That will give them the certainty to work together and plan for the future. We all know that confidence is key when private sector investment falls, as it has done—manufacturing and construction are still delivering less today than before the financial crisis. The economy is still out of balance.

I worry, too, that the stealth taxes on people’s insurance policies are just another way in which families doing the right thing are being penalised for the Chancellor’s failure to meet his own targets and economic plan.

I would like to offer the Chancellor one suggestion to improve the country’s tax take. I am talking about the light or no taxes paid by those who manipulate international tax arrangements to their own advantage but to the detriment of the countries in which they trade. Some of his suggestions are interesting—I will look at them in more detail—and could prove helpful in tackling that problem, but we do not know how a company as large as Google, with thousands of UK staff and five offices and global revenues of $74 billion in 2015, paid just £130 million in tax after a six-year investigation into what it should have paid over 10 years. The problem is not confined to Google. There is Facebook, AstraZeneca, Vodafone, British American Tobacco—the list of corporate giants with light UK tax bills goes on and on.

We might not like it, but those companies have not acted illegally. They are planning their taxes to pay less by exploiting different tax rules in different counties. Yesterday, I brought in the Multinational Enterprises (Financial Transparency) Bill—a catchy title—to ensure that important information about large companies’ revenues and tax planning is published. I am delighted to have the support of every member of the Public Accounts Committee, be they SNP, Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat. I have the support of more than 50 MPs from across the parties, as well as that of Fair Tax Mark, the Tax Justice Network, Oxfam, CAFOD, Action Aid and Christian Aid.

The problem that every country is struggling with, but which no one country can solve, is profit shifting by multinationals. A company doing a lot of business in the USA or the UK can transfer profits to a low-tax country, such as Ireland, where corporation tax is 12.5%, or Bermuda, where it is zero. In 2010, the total company profits reported as coming from Bermuda were 1,643% of the size of the country’s GDP. If multinationals trading in the UK pay much lower corporation taxes by transferring profits, that gives them an advantage over domestic businesses that pay what is due here. My Bill has been nicknamed the Google Bill, but it is not about Google, and it is not even about online businesses alone, because we know that the problem extends to coffee chains, oil companies, drinks companies and pharmaceuticals. What they all have in common is that they are multinationals.

For many years, development organisations felt that it was an injustice if a firm was mining or producing oil in Africa but paying no tax there. Charities say that developing countries lose more in potential revenue each year owing to corporate tax dodging than the amount given to them annually in overseas aid by all richer countries. That made me stop and think about how much more we could do to enable developing countries to prosper and be more self-sufficient through measures such as my Bill. Aid is vital to poorer nations, but just as important is a hand-up rather than a hand-out. This will not happen unless we force companies to come clean.

I welcome and support the Government’s action in legislating to ensure that reporting on taxes, revenues and employment, including in other countries, is shared with our own Revenue and Customs. That will affect about 400 companies here in the UK. The Chancellor has said that he supports that information being published, which my Bill would provide for, so why wait for everyone in the G20 to do that? The data are not commercially sensitive; we are not asking for companies’ whole tax returns or future business plans. The principle is that publishing means that everyone gets the chance to see the bigger picture. I believe that the tide is turning against secrecy, and organisations such as Fair Tax Mark encourage companies to declare that they have paid their taxes and do not use tax havens. I want every large company to meet that test.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

As a fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am delighted to support the right hon. Lady’s Bill. Does she agree that there is a role for our Government, given that many tax havens fly the British flag and subscribe to the same “Her Majesty” as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?

[Caroline Flint]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his support for my Bill as a colleague on the Public Accounts Committee. He is absolutely right; that is shameful and not acceptable. This practice has been going on for too long, and I hope that we can find different ways of attacking it on a cross-party basis. One way is the proposal in my Bill to clamp down on such activity.

I wrote to the Chancellor last week, but clearly he did not see my letter seeking his support for my proposal to go into the Budget. However, he should not worry, as it is not too late. A new Finance Bill will follow the Budget debate, and with cross-party support behind me I will seek to amend it. Alternatively, the Government could adopt the measures that I have outlined. I believe they are in the interests of social justice, fairness and good business. Publication can make a difference and put pressure on companies to play fair and pay up.

Finally, I want to say something about education. I am worried at what I believe is an ill-thought-out plan to force every school to become an academy under the guise of more autonomy for schools. I support tackling failing schools, I supported local community schools in becoming community-run trusts, and I have supported academies in my constituency, but I do not believe this is a policy for local autonomy.

I met parents and teachers at Pennine View School in Conisbrough, a wonderful special school with a good Ofsted rating. It is a community school with committed staff and governors. Why should that school, which does a good job, be forced to become an academy? I do not think the argument is there. What is more sinister is the insistence by regional school inspectors that single academies, often local community schools, must be forced into multi-academy trusts. When academies began, schools in the same pyramid would join as a group and support each other; the model was collaborative. Today, however, academy chains are becoming huge businesses, with headteachers receiving instructions from a head office 100 miles away.

I was recently at Auckley School, where I met a governor, Keith Scott, who has served that school for 14 years. It is a good school; why should it be forced into a chain? It is well run and well regarded. As more data are collected, we find that previously well regarded academy trusts have failed, and in a number of cases, the test of improved standards and outcomes is not being met. Some have suggested that the growth of academy chains has not helped.

I have never shirked from challenging those whose provision of education is not good enough, and I still will not. As an MP, though, I want to know how this new idea will ensure the accountability that there has to be for whoever is providing education for our children, and how it will help children to achieve. It is a dogmatic policy. Just as there were those who refused to acknowledge when local education authorities were not always doing a good job, the same thing applies now. Two wrongs do not make a right. I hope that the Government will look again at this experiment, as it has been called, and ensure that we do not harm the future education of our children.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid but separate point. I am addressing the question of whether keeping shops open longer will stop people shopping online; he wants people to have jobs servicing the online industry. As has been pointed out, a number of high street stores are successful in maintaining their high street position and at the same time giving an online offer.

I am prepared to concede that we need to remain competitive as a country, so I asked the British embassy in Paris to give me details of the recent change in French Sunday trading laws. Essentially, my amendment, which I have tabled with the help of the Clerks, seeks to mirror as closely as possible how the French Government have approached the very same question by designating localised tourist zones.

The Macron law—it is named after the Minister who introduced it—extended the number of Sundays for trading in France from five a year to 12 a year. Essentially, it is one Sunday a month. By happy coincidence, it created 12 zones. Six are in Paris, and it might be a welcome distraction to Members to run through where they are: Boulevard Haussmann, Champs-Élysées, Saint-Germain and Montmartre. That gives colleagues a sense of the size of the zones that the French Government identified. There are zones in six other regional cities, including Cannes, Deauville and Nice.

That allowed local government to designate smaller tourist zones, where shops under special licence could open for longer. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) indirectly asked how the French Government designated tourist zones. The answer to his question is that they collected data on the profile of shoppers who used those zones. Their definition was that the zone should show exceptional attendance by tourists residing abroad. Crucially, those tourist zones do not have wider application, which reduces the negative effects on smaller shops and convenience stores, which we have discussed.

The Olympic park experience is important because, in essence, it is the only practical pilot we have to go on when discussing the likely impact of extended opening. When the practical experience of 2012 was analysed by Oxford Economics, it was ascertained, as Members have pointed out, that small and medium-sized enterprises in up to a two-mile radius from large supermarkets in the area lost over 3% of their weekly sales income. If that is extrapolated to the national scale, it is estimated there would be an annual loss of £870 million in sales for all types of convenience stores and a net loss of 3,270 retail jobs in England and Wales, were longer Sunday trading hours to be made permanent, in line with the experiment during the Olympics.

I have been contacted by local Nisa and SPAR convenience store providers concerned about the implications of these changes on smaller stores. I also share the deeper concerns expressed by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Church of England, about the erosion of a general day of leisure on which people can be available for shared activities with friends and family, especially those who build up community spirit and strengthen families.

I have talked to shop workers in large stores who often get their free time in half days on days other than Sunday, when family and friends might not be available. Until today, we have not had a detailed impact assessment, so I tend to agree with the Bishop of St Albans, the lead spokesman in the Church of England on Sunday trading. He said that:

“an increase in opening hours will only lead to more people being pressured into spending Sunday apart from their children and families.”

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, I represent a constituency with a large tourism industry. How would her suggestion work, given that in Paignton, for example, parts of the town centre are used by locals, yet the out-of-town supermarket is used by people going to the holiday camps? How would this result in a tourist zone?

[Mrs Spelman]

This is essentially a devolved proposal. It would be for local authorities to express an interest in being a designated tourist zone. My amendment limits temporally and geographically the potentially deleterious impact on SMEs. It has the capacity to deal with extended opening hours during the British holiday season, as well as during the Christmas season, when many places—Blackpool, for example—experience an increase in tourist trade.

Research has shown that the majority of shop workers do not welcome the opportunity to work longer hours on a Sunday. I commend Ministers for including improved legal protections in the current provisions, but the practical reality in the workplace is that if someone is worried about losing their job, they will not want to ask for a special concession not to have to work on a Sunday. Similarly, if someone wants a promotion, they will not want to ask for that concession, because their competitors in the promotion stakes might not ask for a comparable one.

I welcome the Government amendment, which did make it on to the amendment paper, to give local authorities the power to restrict Sunday trading to zones, but I am concerned that the zoning is potentially too broad in its impact. For example, it would not be strong enough to avoid a combined local authority-wide mega-zone occurring, which, in my view, would have an excessively negative impact. A trial would also make it difficult to discern the selected impacts on different businesses within such a wide zone.

It is obviously not the Minister’s fault that the manuscript amendment was not selected. He indicated that it gave us a feeling for what he would like to do—it was a valiant effort—but the difficulty for parliamentarians is that it is not actually on the amendment paper. As somebody said, we need an amendment that we can feel and touch. I believe that a compromise that benefits families and UK competition lies in the tourist-zone model. I strongly encourage Members to support this compromise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I did not speak in favour of Sunday trading in Committee, because I did not speak about Sunday trading in Committee, and the record will prove that. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) spoke in favour of stronger workers’ rights, and that is also there for the record.

I have mentioned cash retentions, and the Minister’s attitude to dealing with that matter is to acknowledge that it is an issue but to say, “Don’t worry, we have a Government review. We will do the review and then we will implement the measures.” We have to put all the trust in the Minister, but we should consider what the proceedings on Sunday trading show. The Prime Minister said, “We won’t be doing Sunday trading” but it was then proposed, even though it was not in the manifesto, and today we have seen last-minute deals. That proves that we cannot have any trust there, which is why I wanted to have a vote about cash retentions.

[Kevin Foster]

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments on Sunday trading. Will people working in Scotland’s largest supermarkets be able to look forward to hours restrictions from the SNP Government at Holyrood, given the SNP’s attitude towards that issue in England?

[Alan Brown]

It is a different argument. The Government did not publish a full, proper impact assessment. The impact assessment that came before me was suggesting that workers might lose up to £1,400 a year and there could be £70 million lost out of the Scottish economy—that is from a published economist. When the Government cannot counteract that, I will go with that information. My conscience told me to vote on that basis and do the right thing.

Let me conclude on the cash retentions. We are seeking a retention deposit scheme similar to the tenant deposit scheme. This has been implemented in other countries— it has just been introduced in New Zealand—and shown to work well. It would protect small businesses. Up to £3 billion is held in cash retentions at any one time, and £40 million was lost in 2015—this is money the small companies could not recover because of bankruptcy in the other companies. Given that this recovery is meant to be based on small and medium-sized enterprises, this was another missed opportunity by the Government. I will leave it at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Solloway]

I have limited time available to me now, so let me just say that I think Sunday trading would enhance the role of retailers and give people the choice that they very much want to have.

[Kevin Foster]

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the Opposition seem uninterested in the small business commissioner, who will make a real difference to small businesses, and that they just want to harp on about one issue instead?

[Amanda Solloway]

With the House’s permission, I will continue discussing the small business commissioner. Under the current system, payment disputes too often cannot be resolved without cases going to court. That costly process is limiting to small businesses and, if pursued, can lead to further financial pressures, making it a barely viable option to small business to have any kind of legal battle.

With my background in retail, I have often seen directly how late payments, often by larger and more robust businesses, can be crippling to small businesses. There may well even be a culture of large firms dragging their heels when it comes to making payments. What those firms disregard is how serious it can be to these small businesses not to make payments on time.

A recent study in Derby found that one in five businesses in the region is a victim of late payments, and that can be crippling.

Short Money

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a timeworn phrase but it bears repetition: sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is vital that the Government secure value for money. Given that the purpose of Short money is to provide a credible Opposition, does he agree that the display that we have seen so far, with the announcement of policies such as nuclear submarines without nuclear missiles, shows that much of it has been completely squandered?

[John Penrose]

I hesitate to follow my hon. Friend down such a path, but if the purpose of Short money is to provide a credible Opposition and it has gone up by 50% since 2010, perhaps we now have an incredible Opposition instead.

Equitable Life

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I strongly agree. I can hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) commenting in the background—he made that same point in the debate, as did the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). There is unity in the House on wanting a savings culture. We want people to retire with decent pensionable income, but we will create that confidence only if we show that we are prepared to stand behind the Equitable Life consumers. They were let down by the company and the regulator, and the Government have that moral and ethical responsibility to step in. That should not be underestimated.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is partly about building intergenerational confidence? We want people to start saving for pensions in their late 20s and their 30s. They need to have confidence that that money will still be there in a pot in future, and that there is a proper system of regulation. This is about building confidence for those who will save in future, and not just about the Equitable Life policyholders who have been affected in this instance.

[Ian Blackford]

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman and am happy to associate myself with his comments. It is about creating that long-term stability in the financial services industry and ensuring that we have the right regulatory regime. We must have the right architecture for both private and public pension provision in this country. I hope all in the House have a shared interest in doing that. That is why the debate is so important, and why the Government must respond in the correct manner. How we deal with the long-running saga of Equitable Life is important in the context of his intervention.

Let us remind ourselves of the background. Equitable Life was a major provider of with-profits pension plans. A minority of policyholders invested in policies that offered a guaranteed annuity rate. That rate was set below the normal historical rates, but towards the end of the 1980s, that “normal” changed. Increasingly, the guaranteed annuity rate was over-generous and ultimately unaffordable to Equitable Life in the long run. In response, Equitable stopped sales and reduced the capital value of the pension pots by reducing discretionary bonuses. Guaranteed annuity rates were thus maintained only because the capital sum was far lower than had been expected.

Ultimately, GAR holders took legal action to stop Equitable from rigging pension payouts and won in the House of Lords in 2000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus mentioned in his speech. That judgment increased the financial burden on Equitable by about £1.5 billion, a sum that threatened its solvency. Equitable Life hoped to fill that gap by suspending distributions to policyholders and by selling the business, but it was unable to find a buyer. It ceased all further business and became a closed fund. It also had to reduce policy bonuses, and hence the ongoing pensions of investors. Pensions reductions of up to a third were common. It was a perfect storm.

Policyholders have long tried for compensation. Two ombudsman reports concluded that there had been maladministration and that injustice had been suffered. We should remind ourselves of what was said in the second ombudsman report. The conclusion stated:

“the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme, with a view to assessing the individual cases of those who have been affected by the events covered in this report and providing appropriate compensation.”

I emphasise “appropriate compensation”.

EU Referendum: Timing

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

No, not at all. That is a rather strange argument to make. In Northern Ireland and elsewhere, European elections have been held on the same day as local and Assembly elections. So that is neither here nor there. We have already made the point that people are quite capable of separating out the issues. We are talking about the impact on the functioning of the devolved Administrations and the ability of political parties to campaign and work with others, if necessary, on those issues; about the purdah issue the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) rightly raised; and about the media’s concentration on EU issues to the exclusion of devolved issues. This debate is about those important issues, not the question the hon. and learned Lady raised.

On 3 February, the First Ministers of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, along with the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, wrote jointly to the Prime Minister to set out the case against a June referendum and to argue for the debate to be free from other campaigning distractions. That needs to be taken seriously and treated with the respect it deserves. We hear a lot about the respect agenda and taking on board the views of the devolved Administrations, and that now needs to be put into practice. This is an important moment in this Parliament. Will the Government respect the devolved Administrations?

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman talk about listening to the views of the Electoral Commission. Last Thursday, in questions to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), who was representing the commission, I asked if it had given a view yet on dates in June. It had—it had only ruled out the 2nd and the 9th. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that says something?

[Mr Dodds]

I will come to the Electoral Commission shortly.

The leaders of the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have very different views and come from very diverse backgrounds. We have the leader of the Scottish National party, the leader of the Labour party in Wales, the Democratic Unionist party leader and the Sinn Féin leader in Northern Ireland. That is a diverse group of politicians with very different backgrounds—to say the least—but they have come together not out of party political interest but in the interests of the peoples they represent in their respective countries. Whether on the “remain” or the “leave” side, they have set aside party political considerations in the common interest that the referendum should not happen in June. My colleague, Arlene Foster, Northern Ireland’s First Minister, has rightly observed that any premature European referendum campaign would inevitably become intertwined with the Stormont elections. How could it not?

European Union Referendum Bill

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Let me thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and say that I am enjoying listening to his observations. Does he agree that, if the Electoral Commission was to take the bizarre decision to designate only one campaign when there was clearly a coherent and legitimate campaign for the other side, it would be clearly open to judicial review on that point?

[Mr Jenkin]

I am waiting to hear what the Minister has to say on that point. The proposed amendment changes the wording. It now says that it should be allowed to make that decision only if

“no permitted participant makes an application to be designated under section 109 as representing those campaigning for that outcome except for a permitted participant whose application the Commission states is, in its opinion, vexatious or frivolous.”

That would mean that, provided there are two legitimate applications for designation, the obligation would be clear in the Bill that the commission has to designate two campaigns. That is not clear in the Bill at the moment. If one such campaign was “vexatious or frivolous” and was clearly just there to spoil in some respects, the Electoral Commission would have to justify its action. I hope the Minister will tell us that he can accept our amendment. If he cannot do so, I hope that he will make it clear that the substance of the amendment should be understood, and that it would be unconscionable to have only one campaign designated in this referendum. If an application is made in such a way as to be construed as vexatious or frivolous, such an application would have to be considered. We should be in no doubt that there will be an application in respect of both sides of this campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has tabled a number of amendments. He is not currently in his place. He said that he might well withdraw them, but it may be useful if I elucidate my views on them, depending on how other Members feel. My view is that the Electoral Commission should not be drawn into the fray, or the debate, in the way that my hon. Friend suggests in his amendment. The Electoral Commission has written to hon. Members across the House, and my hon. Friend acknowledged that it would consider any increase in its adjudication powers or role as ultra vires. I agree with that view. To put the Electoral Commission into the politically sensitive position of arbitrating or adjudicating on the accuracy and cogency of the Government’s report would probably be a step too far. That strays into the realm of a quasi-judicial, quasi-campaigning role.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is going over the impact of making the Electoral Commission quasi-judicial, but Secretaries of State and Ministers are answerable to this Parliament and in particular to this House. It would put the commission in the role of partly taking on the job of Parliament.

[Mr Mak]

My hon. Friend makes an outstanding point. To give the Electoral Commission a role beyond its current role would be to tread on the feet of hon. Members and encroach on the democratic freedoms and roles of this Parliament. My hon. Friend is right that the Electoral Commission does not agree with the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) says, there are better sources of information—such as literature from the various campaign groups that I mentioned and information from public bodies such as the Office for Budget Responsibility or the Bank of England. I would encourage members of the public to read Hansard, where the speeches of many distinguished hon. Members can be found, including from this very debate.