Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

I made a speech in this place on 1 February 2016 on the FCA compensation scheme for interest rate hedging products. I argued then that that scheme was ill thought out and provided no effective redress for businesses that had been made insolvent. To be honest, I was almost tempted to re-read my previous speech because here we are again, although I would have included the new numbers. Whereas in the case of the IRHP scheme 10% of its complainants were insolvent, in the case of RBS Global Restructuring Group that figure is upwards of 75%, with some estimates as high as 94%, yet fundamentally nothing has changed because RBS has already confirmed that it will not deal with the business owners who have lost their livelihood. The too little, too late apology from the chief executive of RBS, Ross McEwan, is not good enough.

Thanks to the excellent investigative journalism of BuzzFeed and the BBC, the so-called dash-for-cash articles make fascinating, yet harrowing reading. They clearly demonstrate a system that is well ordered and well structured in which the winner takes all. The so called victory emails that were sent to teams in GRG when West Register acquired an asset are a disgrace. That is quite telling because where there is a victor, there is always a loser.

I am grateful to Nick Stoop of Warwick Risk Management who applies the story of the “Komodo dragon” condition. The Komodo dragon lies in wait at a watering hole where it nips the foot of its prey. The prey escapes, apparently not seriously harmed, but the bite is toxic and the dragon knows that its target will eventually weaken and die. So it is with RBS swaps and GRG. The swaps salesman lands the toxic bite. GRG and West Register then get to tear the client to pieces.

I concur with Members who spoke about what that means for those people. We can never forget that people are at the heart of what we are trying to do here. Remember what they may have lost—their family home, their business, their livelihood, their future livelihood if they planned for their children to go into the business, their dignity, their pride and often their very self-definition. We know that wider society loses—the wider community, other local businesses that depend on the failed business, its supply chain, creditors, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) pointed out the potential emotional impact on individuals who, for years, have to dig deep for resilience and strength, but very often end up with mental health issues or develop physical illnesses. Let us never forget that people have committed suicide as a result of the actions of some of our banks.

When did we sign up to this? When did we sign up to a taxpayer-owned bank pillaging the assets of our SMEs—the so-called life blood of our economy—or creating a system where victory emails are sent when another department of the same bank asset-strips? We have to ask whether abuses such as those at RBS could have taken place if we had a system where a business owner could simply be heard. I concur again with my hon. Friend that it is a contract between unequals when somebody who has been declared sequestrated or insolvent cannot take on a bank.

[Mr Baker]

In this House we often hear strident language. The hon. Lady used the word “pillage”. I entirely agree that it is wholly appropriate to describe some of that behaviour as a pillage of those companies, and I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that compliment.

Finally, I want to address the topic of culture. We need to recall that it is the underlying culture of institutions that has enabled this to happen. We know that we have come from a driven, bottom-line culture, but we must make our banking system—our whole financial system—work for us and for our society. I fear that we have lost sight of that over recent years. I agree that we need a tribunal, but we also need an effective process so that precedent can be set and learned from, and so that behaviour is changed and abuses do not happen in the first place. We have seen that happen with other tribunal systems.

I thank the APPG for its support in driving this campaign and Andrew Bailey of the FCA who endorsed the idea. It is time to get started.

Scotch Whisky Industry

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Moon. Hon. Members might wonder what on earth my link with whisky is, as the Member for Edinburgh West. Well, here you go. BenRiach Distillery Company, which is in fact based in Speyside, was built by John Duff in 1898. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) will note that that was 10 years after the formation of Celtic football club. The distillery features a traditional floor and pagoda-style chimneys. It was a global whisky distiller of the year in 2015 and, more importantly, its head office is located in Edinburgh West.

Few people consider the wider picture around the supply chain. Bottlers, glass makers, ceramics, cereals, transport, energy suppliers, tourism and retailers all add value. There are spin-off businesses, such as Celtic Renewables, which makes biofuel capable of fuelling cars with the by-products of whisky production.

We have talked about the value of the industry to the economy of Scotland and the UK, and about the increase in the tax take with the tax cut in March 2015. I agree with what I suspect the Minister will say, which is that it is difficult to prove the so-called causality. However, from a business perspective, I believe that the tax cut gave businesses the confidence to invest. We cannot assume that a year-on-year tax cut will always result in this outcome, but we can reflect on the fundamental fairness of how the industry is treated compared with others, such as beer. The tax cut is also to be welcomed as we have seen a reverse in the trend of declining home figures.

There are new distilleries in Annandale, Arbikie, Ardnamurchan, Ballindalloch, Dalmunach, Eden Mill, Glasgow, Isle of Harris, and Kingsbarns—now, I would like the Minister to repeat those backwards, if he can. In fact, the finance director of the Glasgow Distillery is an old colleague of mine from the independence referendum. The new distilleries will initially focus on gin but, critically, we must emphasise the point about capital investments. It is about the creation of jobs and infrastructure. As I mentioned, the supply chain is of value to the wider economy, particularly to rural economies.

I am a member of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, in which I recently questioned Ian Wright of the Food and Drink Federation. If the contribution of Scotch whisky to UK exports was underappreciated, he highlighted that the UK Government fail to appreciate the value of consumer goods in general and said that there needs to be a change of mindset on the issue. I agree with that.

Significant value is to be derived from increasing exports, especially looking at the massive potential of the emerging middle classes in the likes of India. The Scotch Whisky Association argues that taxing until the pips squeak sets a precedent for overseas markets. Indeed, Scotch faces a tariff of 150% in India. In reality, the economic picture is considerably more complex, with individual economies making decisions based on support for their own producers, not just on their perception of the high quality of Scotch, but the point is worthy of reflection.

I am concerned about a potential British withdrawal from Europe because barriers to trade are considered unhelpful by industry. We should go for a trade agreement in India and stay in Europe; we can have both.

On a more serious note, my last point is about Scotland the brand, which whisky most encapsulates. There have been a number of attempts today to bottle the essence of Scotland the brand. The brand is shaped by authenticity and personality, and that cannot be truer than of Scotch whisky. Brand has equity, and we mentioned that when we talked about the small gin distilleries. Brand is the recognition and embodiment of key values, pleasures, value and perception, but it faces competition and we must ensure that the industry can compete.

I leave hon. Members with two brief thoughts about whisky. The first is from my personal favourite, Tommy Cooper:

“I’m on a whisky diet. I’ve lost three days already.”

And, finally, “Alcohol is your trouble,” said the judge to the drunk. “Alcohol alone is responsible for your present predicament.” The drunk looked pleased as he said, “Thank you, judge. Everyone else says it’s my fault!”

Financial Conduct Authority

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle. I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for the work that he has done through the all-party parliamentary group and more widely. People whom I knew in a previous life before I came to this place are very appreciative of that work. I will address my remarks primarily to the fact that the FCA process of redress simply does not work for businesses that are forced into insolvency as a result of being mis-sold interest rate hedging products. The concept of hedging is well understood to mitigate risk, but those products were structured to be a “heads I win, tails you lose” for the banks.

As many in the Chamber will be aware, mis-selling has caused many unnecessary insolvencies across the country, with simply devastating consequences for individuals and their families. Many companies are in administration, some have had all their assets sold and some have been liquidated, often with the banks still pursuing the directors for personal guarantees and their family homes. In England and Wales, the process under unregulated Law of Property Act receivership is similar, and many people have been made personally bankrupt as a direct result of the mis-selling. The situation should not have occurred in the first place.

Unfortunately, the review process instigated by the FCA is of little use to the individuals—our constituents—who lost their businesses, their homes and their life’s work to the scandal. The first issue is that the process fundamentally does not address, or provide a solution for, insolvent businesses that have suffered from bank misconduct. The former Business Secretary stated in May 2013, after the FCA scheme had been launched, that there were

“unresolved issues surrounding the mis-selling scandal, including how businesses have been forced to close because of the products the banks sold in the first place.

This includes deciphering who will be able to help the businesses in administration, when their assets have been taken away from them, and who will be in charge of finding a solution for them.”

It is clear from that statement that that was an acknowledged fatal flaw in the FCA review system from its inception. Where a business is forced into insolvency, the business owner loses control over the process. Even if the insolvency practitioner decides to pursue a claim against the bank, the redress goes to the bank. One quite simply could not make it up.

The second issue is how the redress process was administered. There has been a distinct lack of transparency about the details of the deals between banks and the FCA, and how the deals varied from bank to bank. How can fairness be guaranteed or trusted when different rules apply to different banks, none of which is transparent, and where gagging orders are commonplace? How can fair treatment be ensured for the 3,000 SMEs that won compensation from the banking review but received no benefit because they were already out of business?

As it stands, the FCA review allows the banks successfully to sidestep all responsibility for their actions, manipulating the system and using the process of insolvency to disregard the principle of the review. Rather than business people receiving redress for their loss, the banks can quite happily admit that they have mis-sold a product and pay the redress to insolvency practitioners. Insolvency practitioners do not have the tools to deal with the scenario. Their primary duty is to the creditors, which results in the lion’s share of the redress going back to the bank. Directors, shareholders and unsecured creditors, including HMRC and local councils, bear the brunt of the pain. It is a paper exercise in which the only benefactors are the insolvency practitioners, who make a tidy sum in fees, and the bank, which is essentially allowed to pay itself back for its own misconduct.

Some, such as the banks and the FCA, may argue that the businesses would have been insolvent anyway. I am sure that that is true for some of them, but, as we know, cash flow is the lifeblood of any business. Sustained, extensive pressure to make high interest payments over several years is, without doubt, a major—indeed, often the sole—contributory factor in a business’s success or failure. To dismiss it as otherwise is not only misleading, but insulting to the thousands of business owners who have lost their life’s work to this scandal. Despite constant calls for engagement and dialogue, business owners who have lost everything are systematically ignored. It is important to acknowledge at this point that, fundamentally, this is not just about regulation or governance, but actually about people. The banks have admitted mis-selling and the business people have been exonerated, but those people still find themselves in a position of powerlessness and total frustration.

There are still difficulties. HMRC now treats owners differently, as they know that consequential losses are not paid out. These systemic issues need to be addressed. Those who have lost so much are often left with nothing more than the energy, drive and determination to fight this tooth and nail. Unfortunately, neither the regulator nor the law gives them the tools or even the voice to fight. On the contrary, their voices are stifled and their pleas for help are ignored. Would it not be more constructive to give them a fair deal in terms of compensation and recovery, so that the business people who have lost everything can use their energy and drive to rebuild their businesses, thereby doing their bit to contribute to our overall economic recovery? To do that, they need our support—the support of lawmakers and regulators—because the banks are not, simply on their own initiative, doing the right thing. With its decision to drop the inquiry into banking culture, the FCA is not doing the right thing either.

The third issue concerns the ability of individuals to take action; only private individuals can take such action. Although a bank may have breached its regulatory duties under the FCA regulations, it can be sued only for breach of contract, not for regulatory breaches—

Tax Credits

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

Let me make a little progress, and then I will.

Let us look at the facts of the matter. In Scotland, more than 500,000 children are in families that rely on tax credits, 350,000 of which are from the more than 200,000 low-income families who will be hit by these changes. If we take the UK as a whole, the Library tells us that 3.3 million in-work families received tax credits in April 2015, of whom 2.7 million had children. The Library tells us that the average negative impact in the reduction of the tax credit award in 2016-17 will be £1,300. As the Library puts it, the changes to tax credits will deliver savings of £4.4 billion in 2016-17. Of course, that is one way to put it; in reality, it is £4.4 billion that will be taken out of the pockets of the poor and the majority of working families, and £4.4 billion-worth of spending that will be taken out of local economies.

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

Do not people in lower income groups tend, in general terms, to spend money in their local communities, and will the cuts not therefore remove potential investment and growth from those communities?

[Ian Blackford]

Indeed, and I shall be saying more about that a little later. You do not fix the deficit by taking spending out of the economy. The point is that those hard-working families who receive tax credits tend to spend every penny that they get, injecting money into the local economy, paying tax, and so on.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman says that, but, looking at what people say about this, it seems that they do not have confidence that the allowance is permanent because of the way it has chopped and changed. That the Government acted in 2010 to reduce it to a quarter of its earlier value—it was £100,000—is part of the problem. One can see from what I just read out that it jumped around.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, both the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have called for the annual investment allowance to be retained at £500,000. Crucially, the IFS also states that

“restricting the AIA to investment in plant and machinery only creates distortions through differential treatment of assets.”

The IFS has estimated that setting the annual investment allowance at £200,000 from January next year will cost £0.8 billion.

Will the Minister explain how the Chancellor reached the figure of £200,000? As I say, the allowance has jumped about: it was cut to just £25,000 and is now going to be £200,000. There were calls from some small and medium-sized businesses to set a level over £500,000. The IFS says that over the past few years there has been

“an absurd degree of inconsistency”

in the setting of the allowance. As highlighted earlier, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ “Paying for Tomorrow” campaign put forward a strong argument for a need for a long-term view on tax, with a simple, focused approach to tax reliefs. The history of the allowance is anything but that.

The inconsistency has a damaging effect on businesses’ confidence to plan for the future. The move to make the annual investment allowance a permanent rate is welcome, and we support the move to encourage investment and productivity, but we question whether the measure goes far enough. As I said, a number of small and medium-sized businesses have called for the allowance to be set above the current level of £500,000. As with business rates, they feel that the Chancellor has not listened to them. There are calls for him to look again at how he helps businesses to continue to spend and grow.

Other reliefs should also be considered. Consultations are out on business rates—although the Minister did not seem keen to tell me more about that one—enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts. We encourage the Government to focus more than they have on the needs of small businesses. I have many questions about how the annual investment allowance has been handled by the Government to date, but of course we welcome some degree of permanence, as guaranteed in the summer Budget—if it is to be permanent. However, the overall system of tax reliefs for businesses must be considered if we are to have a competitive and fair system for businesses to invest and grow. I hope that the Minister will adopt Labour’s new clause and launch a public consultation on reforms to the system of tax reliefs for businesses. I hope also that Members will support the new clause when we vote on it later.

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (SNP)]

Much of what I say will be in support of the comments made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South. The Scottish National party also considers the allowance a vital investment tool, particularly for small businesses. The fact that it can be claimed during a year of investment rather than over a number of years is particularly beneficial for encouraging investment and therefore productivity, which we are also keen to see.

To reiterate what the hon. Lady said, yes, the allowance was increased to £500,000, and we are pleased that it will not fall off a cliff edge to £25,000 in January 2016; rather, it will just be decreased to £200,000. It is, however, a pity that it is a decrease of £300,000. My question for the Minister is, if it is good at £500,000, why not keep it there to encourage productivity? In his Mansion House speech, the Chancellor said that we do not export enough, train enough, save enough or invest enough. The key question stands: why not make the allowance permanent at £500,000?

[Mr Gauke]

I thank hon. Members for their questions. First, let me make it clear that £200,000 is the highest permanent level there has been for the allowance. If I recall correctly, it was £100,000 during the Labour party’s last year in office. We made some temporary increases in the AIA to support the recovery, and those increases were warmly welcomed by businesses, which believed that they allowed them to bring forward and realise their investment plans. We recognise the importance of providing certainty to businesses in the current economic climate, and we are committing to keeping the level of £200,000 for the entire Parliament. We believe that that will help to provide an environment of long-term support for businesses to invest.

The level of the allowance must be viewed in the context of cuts to corporation tax. We must remember that although the previous Government had an annual investment allowance of £100,000, the rate of corporation tax was 28%. The allowance of £200,000 when we have a corporation tax rate of 20%, falling to 18%, is significantly more generous.

On business reaction, let me read two quotations following the Budget announcement on 8 July. John Allan, the chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said:

“The Annual Investment Allowance has been an important incentive for people investing in the future growth and productivity of our small businesses. We have long called for the Allowance to be set permanently and at a reasonable level. Small firms will therefore welcome the move by the Chancellor to do just that by setting the Allowance permanently at £200,000.”

John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said on the same day:

“The Chancellor has confirmed that Britain is open for business. Firms across the UK will cheer not just the new permanent Annual Investment Allowance, further Corporation Tax reductions, and lower National Insurance for small businesses, but also commitments to childcare and higher education that help them employ Britain’s best.”

We must bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Thomson]

In that case, I would be interested to understand why it is not set at £500,000. Surely, if it was, businesses would be doubly delighted. What is the economic thinking behind not making it permanent at that level?

[Mr Gauke]

There is a question of cost. It is necessary to evaluate where the impact would lie and the benefit of going above £200,000. Yes, the allowance was once at a very high level, but that was because of particular temporary circumstances, given the uncertainty that existed towards the end of the previous Parliament.

Let us not forget that 99% of companies will receive 100% relief on their investment with an annual investment allowance of £200,000. It is a question of balancing the benefit to investment with the cost in tax that we will forgo if we go above £200,000. The judgment that we made was that, given that 99% of companies will get 100% relief, a level of £200,000 was a reasonable approach to take in the context of a set of policies that are undoubtedly pro-business and designed to attract investment in the UK.

Finance Bill

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for raising the significant issue of fuel duty, which affects all our constituents. It is, however, important to recall the context in which that taxation arises, which is the need to close what is still a very large deficit. Where opportunities exist to adjust taxation sensibly, it is prudent to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) mentioned the context a few moments ago. Home insurance premiums have reduced by 8% year on year during the past year, and car insurance premiums have reduced by about 10% during the past three years. Those reductions more than offset this relatively modest tax increase. I share the distaste of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) for tax increases, but I understand how, in these times of financial difficulty and given the need for deficit reduction, difficult choices have to be made, and I fear that this is one of those difficult choices.

I want to expand on my intervention about the effect of the fuel duty escalator. One of the most significant areas of insurance premium taxation is that of motor vehicles. The suspension of the fuel duty escalator has had a really quite impressive effect on the cost of motoring. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South mentioned an estimate that the insurance premium tax increase would add about 2p to a litre of fuel. I have done some rough calculations on my iPhone during the debate, and I estimate that the saving delivered by the freeze in the fuel duty escalator in 2011 has saved approximately 12p per litre. Taken together, the effect of this Government’s policies on the cost of motoring is a net saving of 10p per litre, which I very strongly welcome.

I want to say more about an opportunity to do more to combat the cost of insurance premiums. I have personal experience of the very widespread practice of making fraudulent claims, particularly for personal injury. I will mention some statistics in a moment, but I will first talk about my personal experience.

A year or two ago, my wife and I were involved in a very minor traffic collision: the car got a bit of a bump and the bumper had to be replaced, but it was nothing more serious than that. A claims management company based in the north of England somehow got hold of my mobile phone number. I have no idea how it did so—from the breakdown recovery company, the insurance company or the police—but weekly for at least a year after the accident, I was called by an extremely pushy and aggressive salesperson. Essentially, they incited me to commit fraud. No matter how often I explained that I, my wife and my young twins had suffered no injury, they insisted that I must have suffered an injury such as a bad back or an aching neck and that I had a claim that could be settled at the insurance company’s expense. They repeatedly and persistently incited me to commit fraud.

The figures show that that is not an isolated example. Aviva is currently investigating 5,500 claims of personal injury fraud. Such fraud has increased 20% year on year. Personal injury claims have increased by 50% since 2007, despite the fact that the number of road traffic collisions has fallen during that period. In this country, personal injury claims make up 35% of insurance pay-outs; in Germany, it is only 4%. Aviva estimates that those claims add £50 to each and every insurance premium paid in this country, which is significantly more than the tax increase we are debating. It is estimated that one in nine personal injury claims is fraudulent.

We have an opportunity to do more to stamp out such fraud and to reduce the cost of insurance premiums, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned. I believe that there is a case for simply banning outright outbound phone calls by ambulance-chasing law firms. We should just make it illegal for them to call people to incite fraudulent claims. I would certainly be very happy to vote for legislation to outlaw such a practice. If anyone has a genuine claim, they can find a law firm’s number in the “Yellow Pages” or on Google; people do not need to be phoned in this way. I urge both Government and Opposition Front Benchers to take my proposal very seriously.

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (SNP)]

I will do something that feels slightly unusual and address my brief remarks to clause 43.

We know that there is a planned increase from 6% to 9.5%—an increase of 58%—but let us not forget that that also applies to administration costs. Throughout the debate, the figures have been evaluated and we have realised that the increase to house contents cover will affect about 20 million people. The people who are likely to move more frequently are those who are not owner-occupiers. Of course, that plugs into the argument, which has already been proven, that lower income groups pay more. The so-called poverty premium, which was explained by Donald Hirsch and backed up by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, is therefore valid in this instance.

The Government state that the tax applies to only one fifth of all premiums, but that is the wrong measure. We should be concerned about the distribution of those premiums. Young drivers aged 21 to 29 make up 14% of the driving population, but 34% of uninsured drivers. Perhaps Adrian Smith of KPMG called it correctly when he noted wryly:

“All I can guess is that there were so many taxes David Cameron ruled out increasing that there weren’t so many left”.

If the driver for this proposal is an increase in tax-take, it should be noted that the rise in January 2011 actually saw a fall in tax receipts of 1.3% between 2011 and 2015. Despite that, the Government suggest that receipts are expected to grow by 1.9% year on year between 2015-16 and 2020-21. I wish I shared their confidence. It may be that higher income groups will drop their health insurance, which is included in their P11D liability. That would, of course, put more pressure on the NHS.

Although the tax is levied on companies, I believe that it will inevitably be passed to consumers. It seems somewhat anti-business that the insurance industry, having done the right thing in making determined attempts to reduce fraud and passing the savings on to consumers, is rewarded with such a significant tax rise over such a short timescale. Let us not forget that businesses will also be affected by the application of the increase to corporate premiums. My worry is that that will disproportionately affect small businesses, which continue to struggle with a range of factors in the current operating environment.

Ultimately, if insurance is about protection and the negation of risk, why should it be more expensive for those who have the most to lose—in other words, the lower income groups?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

In responding to the debate, I hope to touch on many of the questions that have been raised by hon. Members.

Clause 43 increases the standard rate of insurance premium tax to 9.5%. The policy will increase the revenue raised from the tax and help to close the deficit.

Before I turn to the amendment, I will cover some of the points that have been mentioned. I confirm that the insurance charge includes the gross premium that the insurer chargers, including the broker commission and any other directly related costs. It is a charge on the insurer rather than on the individual. It is due on general insurance, which accounts for approximately one fifth of insurance premiums. As we have heard, it includes motor insurance, home insurance, employers liability insurance and medical insurance.

Some 80% of the insurance market is exempt, including reinsurance, long-term insurance such as life insurance and permanent health insurance, and the permanent health insurance that is used to pay for critical illness insurance.

Travel insurance and insurance that people purchase on warranties with, for example, white goods, is already charged at the considerably higher rate of 20% to prevent VAT avoidance. That, too, is unaffected by the change. It is important to remember that there is no VAT overall on insurance.

The new rate for the taxable insurance premiums will begin to apply with effect from 1 November 2015. In the tax year 2016-17, it will raise an extra £1.4 billion, which can be used to reduce the deficit. If insurers pass on the increase, it will affect businesses and households, particularly by increasing the cost of their property and motor insurance. However, we expect that any impact on consumers will be modest. Most households and businesses have some form of general insurance and any impact of a rate rise is therefore shared by a large number of people and organisations, as we have heard. To give some idea of what that means, if insurers chose to pass on the whole increase, the average household expenditure on insurance would increase by 70p per week.

We do not anticipate that the tax increase will reduce the number of people taking out general insurance. Even if insurers choose to pass on the increase, any increased costs will be a very small proportion of the overall cost of insurance. As the insurance market is competitive, customers affected by the change can shop around to find a policy that best fits their needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

In relation to business investment, it would be normal practice to undertake considerable consultations. If big changes are proposed to the taxation affecting businesses, there would normally be a process of easing those changes in, to allow the businesses time to do the appropriate planning. There is no possibility of businesses in the renewables sector being able suddenly to change their financial plans for the next five or 10 years following the ridiculously fast introduction of this measure by the Government.

[Michelle Thomson]

It is anti-business and anti-innovation.

[Roger Mullin]

It is also anti-consumer and anti-environmental. The Government have managed to accomplish a whole series of negatives in one simple move, and it will give me the greatest of pleasure to vote against this proposal.

Finance Bill

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Our amendment starts by stating:

“That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance Bill because it fails to address the real economic needs of the country”.

As I sat through the Budget speech last week—in growing incredulity, it must be said—my greatest concerns were threefold: first, the crude and brutal attacks on protections for the most vulnerable in our society; secondly, the failure to address adequately the challenge of productivity in our economy—despite the remarks of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today, I will try to demonstrate why the Bill fails to address those requirements; and, thirdly, the impact on regional and national economies, not least in Scotland.

On receiving a copy of the Finance Bill and its associated papers, my concerns have not abated. Indeed, through reading the detail in the Bill, further concerns have come to light, and it is therefore my intention—and that of my colleagues—to table a series of detailed amendments in Committee.

Yesterday’s debate on the Welfare Bill exposed many of the negative effects that Government policy will have on the poor, the disabled, the vulnerable, the young, and in-work families. The Finance Bill adds another burden on hard-pressed families who will face a rise in national insurance premiums as a result of the increase in insurance premium tax.

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with concerns expressed by the British Insurance Brokers Association, which stated that the rise in IPT is actually a tax on protection and will affect behaviour by limiting people from taking on that protection? It also states that that will affect young people disproportionately, and it is regressive in that it disproportionately affects families in lower socio- economic groups.

[Roger Mullin]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it must be a concern that the measure will lead many families not to take out necessary insurance, with those that do placing themselves in further hardship.

Those negative effects on the poor are matched by giveaway proposals for the rich. The extent of the commitment given to the rich is perhaps best evidenced by the fact that the Government devote no fewer than 13 pages of the Finance Bill to inheritance tax, ensuring that many loopholes are possible for the benefit of those with high-value homes. There is even a proposal to increase the allowance each year, based on the consumer price index, and to round that up to the nearest £1,000 in case the poor dears find it hard to cope.

The fact that the Government find it so essential to make changes that benefit holders of great wealth in our society, at the same time as they cut support for the most vulnerable, says much about the moral choices that they make. There is also a wider economic cost to such choices. The combination of sucking demand out of local economies by penalising the poorest in our society, combined with the largesse bestowed on the wealthy —who will no doubt find ways of spending or saving that do not benefit local economies—makes the simple point that the Government care more about rewarding their friends than about fixing the economy.

Let me move on to the Government approach to very high earners, who for years have found ways of avoiding and evading tax. I admit that I liked some of the Chancellor’s rhetoric during his Budget speech about closing tax loopholes and ensuring a fairer return from those with high earnings—often, people who earn more than £1 million per year—but looking at the detail in the Bill, it is clear that there is still a considerable distance to travel. For example, much more needs doing to close the so-called Mayfair loophole. It cannot be right that private equity fund managers will be able to continue paying capital gains tax at only 28% on so-called carried interest, rather than income tax at 45%. It is probably not unreasonable to estimate that more than £300 million extra revenue could be gained by tightening the rules in that area alone, and that would enable at least some mitigation of the worst excesses of the Government’s welfare proposals.

The Chancellor is undoubtedly highly skilled politically in his presentation—indeed, in that regard he may have been taking lessons from my predecessor in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. As always, however, the devil is very much in the detail, and the detail leaves too many loopholes.

Let me now address measures that are necessary to tackle some of the areas contributing to weaknesses in productivity—a matter that the Minister addressed.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (SNP)]

I beg to move an amendment, after “importation”, insert

“other than in relation to Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service”.

The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie).

On this final day of the Budget debate, we have heard a great deal about debt and deficit, the Budget itself, and the recently released productivity plan. All the Scottish National party Members have listened with sadness to the planned cuts, which strike fear into our hearts and those of our constituents. I have found myself reflecting a great deal on it—both the conflict of moral principles and the economic madness I believe is contained therein. Called out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this Budget is described as having

“benefit cuts at the centre”;

and as a “tax-raising budget”, the IFS gives the stark warning that,

“unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the Budget on average”,

and that ultimately it is a “regressive” budget.

We are supposed to believe that the smart economic choice is for the UK to eliminate any deficit, pay down all debt, and run—and then sustain—a surplus. We are fed the yarn that an economy must be in surplus; that the gain is worthy of the pain. Despite the concerns of Robert Chote of the Office for Budget Responsibility, who described the plan—somewhat euphemistically—as “ambitious”, and the concerns of 77 leading economic academics, the Chancellor has ploughed on regardless. Now, I know that a degree in history—or, for that matter, one in music—does not equip one with an instinctive understanding of cause and effect, supply and demand or even so-called Micawber economics for that matter, but history does teach us about previous economic choices, and that ability to look back provides real accuracy. We know how the Chancellor’s previous predictions failed to meet actuality, and we know that the much vaunted current growth has taken place only over the past few years.

A number of issues concern me today, one of which is levels of personal debt. The OBR predicts household debt going above the levels of 2008 and reaching an incredible 173% of GDP by 2019. That household debt figure excludes mortgages but is based on unsecured lending such as credit cards and store cards and, with increasing frequency, payday loans. Fundamentally, it contributes to a very real risk of a repeated debt crisis as a direct result of the cuts. We have seen a consumption-led crisis before, yet here it is planned again. I quote the Chancellor, who said:

“This growth is driven by stronger private consumption”.—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 322.]

There is a small mention in the productivity plan about championing enterprise by stimulating finance for small and medium-sized enterprises—but what and how specifically? Simply privatising RBS with the mantra “private equals good” is frankly not good enough. A lack of access to liquidity remains the biggest single issue for small business, while at the other end of the spectrum large businesses stockpile their cash. It has been asked before but is worth reiterating: where is the support for the challenger banks? The cut in corporation tax has been trailed as encouragement for businesses to invest, but there is no clear link or evidence to suggest that will happen. I would have thought that I would have been intervened on by now to ask what within the Budget I agree with, and I confirm that, although I am disappointed with the cut in the annual investment allowance from £500,000 to £200,000, it is better than what was proposed, which was taking it down to £25,000.

The continued focus on financial services, in which I must declare a previous interest, without rebalancing to improve our exports or manufacturing is a worry, particularly where we continue with the models we have adopted. The New Economics Foundation has expressed the view that the

“United Kingdom has the least resilient financial system among leading industrial (G7) nations. It is unusually large and homogenous, highly interconnected . . . highly complex and highly reliant on funding from the wholesale financial markets”.

I recommend to all Members that they read the foundation’s recent report; its concerns concur with those of many other economists.

The SNP is urging action so that we can end the unfair anomaly whereby Scottish police and fire and rescue services alone are liable for payment of VAT. The proposed change to the Budget resolutions would enable us to introduce the necessary changes to the Finance Bill. Were this unfair and discriminatory situation to be corrected, we could free up an additional £23 million of resource for the Scottish Police Authority and £10 million for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—money which, I trust, all hon. Members would agree could provide welcome funds to support the fantastic work that our emergency services do.

Our calls for an end to this anomaly have gained cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, and I am disappointed that the Government have so far refused to address the disparity in their treatment of emergency services north and south of the border. I hope that Members will take the opportunity today to take action and put this situation right.

We all agree that this is about choices, and the choice is how we grow the economy. This must fundamentally be by investment. Despite the productivity plan and various Ministers suggesting an increase in capital expenditure, a comparison between the Red Book of July and that of March 2015 shows total capital spend going down through the lifetime of this Parliament. If the Chancellor is unwilling to invest in the UK economy, give us the powers in Scotland and we will get on with the job.

When talk turns to economic and productivity comparisons, we hear a lot about the G7, the group of the world’s largest western economies, with which the UK likes to compare itself.

[Roger Mullin]

On productivity in the economy, my hon. Friend may be aware that since 2008 and until about 2014, it is fair to say that in terms of productivity per capita the UK has effectively been flatlining, while many other countries, including smaller countries such as Ireland, have seen their productivity rise significantly. There is much to learn from others, is there not?

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I thank the House of Commons Library for some excellent work on GDP per capita and GDP per hours worked, including in relation to Ireland. I shall come on to that.

Where the UK stands in relation to Germany, France, Italy, the USA, Canada and so on provides some useful benchmarks for relative economic performance. The fact that the UK lags behind its peers on so many key indicators is another, all too sad, story. Last out of the recession, lowest productivity, and lowest GDP per capita growth rates—a record that does not tally with the UK Government’s “back in business” narrative.

Although the G7 provides a useful comparison for the UK, its relevance to Scotland is less apparent. We do not aspire to be one of the largest economies in the world, to strut faded imperial grandeur on the world stage or to maintain the pretence of exerting some kind of global influence, 100 years after the height of the British empire. Our ambitions are different—more modest, some would say; more enlightened, others would call it. In business there is a saying, “Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.” To be big is not always to be beautiful. Scotland seeks fairness and prosperity for those who live there.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Given what the hon. Lady said about financial services in this country and how they should be funded, how would she propose to deal with the situation of RBS?

[Michelle Thomson]

We know that at its heart the sell-off of RBS is an attempt to balance the books, but the issue that I pointed out earlier is that banks such as RBS are still not lending enough to small businesses. That is vital. I referred to challenger banks. I come from a business background and speak to many people. That is what I hear from them about what they consider to be a critical issue.

For us, the G7 has more limited relevance. What we need to know is how we are performing as a medium-sized north-west European nation. Are we doing well, or are there opportunities for improvement? Thankfully, there is no shortage of comparable countries—our very own G7 equivalents, nations with characteristics similar to those of Scotland, but in most cases with far fewer natural resources. Whether we look north to Scandinavia, east to central Europe, south to the low countries or west to our Celtic cousins, comparisons abound among nations of similar size to Scotland. They are medium-sized in global terms, sitting in the middle third of global population rankings, not too big, not too small—the Goldilocks nations. Let us call them the M8, and I do not mean the boring motorway that runs between our two great cities. Those are countries with diverse histories, a range of memberships of international organisations and monetary systems, and varying levels of natural resources, physical geographies and cultures, but in their diversity all providing useful comparisons for Scotland. So how does the UK line up against them?

The M8 countries are among the wealthiest nations in the world. In terms of GDP per head their average has consistently outperformed that of both the G7 and the European 28. In terms of GDP per hour worked, which it is so vital to improve as a measure of productivity, their average also beats that of the G7 and Euro28. M8 countries are all richer than the UK by 25% on average, and the M8 countries are 9% richer per capita than the G7 as well—not a bad place to start, given our ambitions. Our aspiration as a nation is to be the best we can be, not to accept the poor performance and failed austerity agenda of the UK Government, but to look to what can be achieved when we set our sights a bit higher. Perhaps it is time we used the M8, rather than the G7, to frame our aspirations.

Productivity

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (SNP)]

I commend the Chief Secretary for his speech. He has clearly been reading the SNP manifesto, given his comments on female participation in the workplace and the gravitational pull of London. I hope that he enjoyed reading it.

Productivity in the UK is indeed low, and it has shrunk by 0.7% over the past seven years. It is now 17% lower than the average in the G7 economies, and that has had an associated impact on living standards. Growth in the EU has been 5% over the same period. The United Kingdom’s GDP is only now returning to pre-crash levels, a point that most of our European competitors reached many years ago. Our downturn in the UK was steeper and lasted longer than those of our neighbours, and recovery has also taken longer.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that during that period we were more dependent on the financial services sector than any other country in the G7, and also in the EU? That undoubtedly had an impact on our productivity.

[Michelle Thomson]

I am going to address that point.

The much-vaunted recent growth has brought us back only to a certain point. When judged against nations smaller in population size—those with between 3 million and 10 million people—the sluggishness of UK plc is laid bare for all to see. Sweden’s productivity is 18% higher than that of the UK; Denmark’s is 26% higher and Norway’s an incredible 77% higher. Even poor Finland, which has no oil, no fisheries and no substantive premium food and drink industry—in fact, it has none of the inherent advantages and natural resources that Scotland enjoys—delivers a productivity performance some 8% higher than that of the UK. The phenomenon is not limited to Scandinavia. In central Europe, Austria’s productivity is 13% higher, and Switzerland’s 23% higher, than that of the UK.

[Ian Blackford]

The picture that my hon. Friend is painting of many small, successful countries is one with which we are all familiar. I am delighted to see that our friends in the Scottish Government have an aggressive agenda of investing in innovation and skills. If Scotland had powers over taxation, however, would not that allow us to deliver higher rates of productivity similar to those of the small, successful European countries?

[Michelle Thomson]

I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall address that point further in a moment.

[Sammy Wilson]

I know that it is in vogue for the Scottish nationalists to blame everything on the Westminster Parliament, but does the hon. Lady accept that most of the supply-side measures that could be introduced to improve productivity are already in the hands of the Government in Scotland?

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is, quite frankly, wrong. I shall also cover that point later in my speech.

The sad fact is that the recent growth in UK GDP has been driven not by increased productivity and not by a focus on increased investment levels or high-value sectors. Instead, it has been delivered with zero-hours contracts, often paying the minimum wage and with low employee engagement. That is not the way to power a modern 21st-century advanced economy. We see the results of this poor performance in our manufacturing sector. Previously, manufacturing accounted for some 30% of total GDP—a position shared with many of our European neighbours. However, a lack of investment and a focus on the City of London have resulted in a manufacturing percentage of GDP that is now barely into double figures.

With only a limited set of powers, the Scottish Government have set out an ambitious strategy to increase Scotland’s productivity and, as a result, Scotland’s economy has seen sustained growth over recent years, with record numbers of people in employment. Female participation in the labour market has increased, and Scotland’s female employment has reached a record high. Including more women in the workforce is a powerful driver to increased productivity and encourages a balanced and inclusive economy. The Scottish Government’s plans to expand the provision of free childcare will encourage more parents into work, too. It is worthy of note that between 2007—the year of the SNP’s election to Holyrood—and 2013, the largest relative rise in productivity of any region or nation in the UK was in Scotland.

This debate must fundamentally be about ambition, which is something that the SNP has for Scotland in droves, but our ambition is for much more than simply a return to pre-recession levels of economic performance. Allow me to highlight some key areas that the Scottish Government’s economic strategy—a real long-term economic plan—promotes.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. She will note that, in the last three years of the coalition Government, imports of Chinese steel have risen by 40%. Does she think it was helpful that the Scottish Executive awarded a contract for the firth of Forth bridge to a Chinese company instead of using British steel?

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, but I would point out that that we did not make the steel in Scotland and that it was a decision of the Scottish Government, not the Scottish Executive.

I was about to highlight some key areas that the Scottish Government’s economic strategy promotes. They include internationalisation, which helps firms to compete in international markets, to increase exports, to make Scotland a preferred location for inward investment and—most importantly from my business perspective—to promote Scotland as the brand of “We are outward looking, we are ambitious and we are open for business”. The plan also promotes investment in our infrastructure, transport, technology and digital connectivity.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one key component of our productivity strategy has to be building on that essential power of the production of knowledge and that universities throughout the UK, including our world-class universities in Scotland, are key in that regard? It is vital that we protect, and indeed enhance, research funding through the universities.

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I absolutely agree with them, and I am going to cover that issue further in my remarks.

We must equip our people, who live in and give to Scotland, with the skills— supporting them with free university education—the health, the ambition and the engagement to contribute to making Scotland a great place.

I mentioned manufacturing, and the SNP supports measures to boost the sector, including targeted research and development tax credits and support provided through the Scottish business development bank. However, the lack of access to business funding remains the biggest critical factor affecting small business, which is the lifeblood of our economy. I still await any evidence of that being recognised and acted on by the Government.

The plan promotes innovation, creating a culture of ambition and drive where we reward the risk-taking entrepreneurs—those who drive real change and live by creative and adaptive thinking. Our plan also supports our excellent universities in commercialising the work they do. Finally, it promotes inclusivity, in the form of building a labour market that can contribute equitably, by promoting fair work and sustainable jobs and by taking positive steps to ensure that families can contribute and lead the way in supported childcare. With further devolution of employment law and the minimum wage, the Scottish Parliament could boost pay and standards, and raise employee satisfaction still further. We want to see more sustainable and high-quality employment opportunities, with a partnership approach to employment conditions. We have also proposed a £2 rise in the minimum wage to £8.70 by 2020 and have actively promoted the living wage.

The Scottish Government are doing what they can with the devolved powers they currently have. Given Scotland’s impressive relative performance since 2007, they have been successful. The truth is that the UK operates a failed and outdated business model, one that delivers for the few but not for the many. With its focus on the City of London and its neglect of key manufacturing and other high value added sectors, it has failed to deliver for the people of Scotland, as well as for many across many other parts of the UK.

[Chris Philp]

Does the hon. Lady not welcome the fact that the UK has the highest growth in the G7, the highest level of employment on record and the lowest unemployment since 1975? Does she not welcome those things?

[Michelle Thomson]

Of course I welcome those things. What I am suggesting is that we can do much better and that we have the ambition in Scotland. I hear a lot of talk, but not enough about substantive ambition. We need to do a lot more and we in Scotland are ready for that.

Delivering more meaningful economic powers to the Scottish Parliament, not the extremely limited ones included in the Scotland Bill, would allow a much more holistic and comprehensive economic strategy. With full tax, investment and employment powers, the Scottish Government could implement policies to boost economic growth and raise productivity levels in Scotland. We have the ambition.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—