Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between Nigel Mills and Ian Swales

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). I should like to begin by saying that this measure is entirely the right thing for Northern Ireland. Those of us who serve on the Select Committee have all seen how hard it is to compete when a neighbour a short distance away can offer a much lower rate of corporation tax. I wholeheartedly support the notion that we should allow Northern Ireland to choose its own corporation tax rate, especially on trading profits. In fact, I would even support the principle that lower business taxes drive growth. Over the past five years in the UK, we have reduced our corporation tax rate from 28% to—in a couple of months’ time—20%, which is important in helping to drive growth in the whole country.

That leads me to my first concern. Part of the argument for making that reduction is that we recover money that we lose in corporation tax by attracting more investment: more companies make more money and pay more corporation tax as there are more profits. Even though corporation tax is set at a lower rate we begin to recoup some of the costs. With more employment, we would expect increases in income tax and PAYE. Greater economic activity will result in more VAT, and more property transactions will give rise to more stamp duty. Those are the key ways of recovering what is lost through lower corporation tax.

It is not entirely clear how much of those increased tax takes will go to Northern Ireland and how much will be kept by the UK as a whole. When the final deal is done and a calculation is made of by how much budgets are reduced, that net cost needs to be worked out to ensure that it is fair to Northern Ireland and fair to the rest of the UK. There will need to be a breakdown of the overall impact of behavioural change as a result of a lower tax rate in Northern Ireland, if that is what results. I assume we expect to see a rate of 12.5%, or perhaps a little lower to make it competitive.

We seem to be devolving taxes haphazardly, creating a mishmash. We ought to look forward a few years and ask, for all our taxes, “What should our tax system look like? What taxes will we devolve and to where? How can we best achieve a sustainable, sensible tax system as a result of that?” One way of doing that would be to set a federal income tax rate and a federal corporation tax rate that apply throughout the UK. Once those were set, each area could choose its own rate as well, so there could be a federal corporation tax rate of, say, 10% and Northern Ireland could choose 0% as its local rate, and England could choose a rate as well.

What we have in this Bill is a complex way of doing that for one area of the country. I accept the reason for doing that just for Northern Ireland initially, but if there is pressure from Scotland and Wales, this mishmash of a system will be hard to act on and it will be very unfair on England. How will we work out the rate that we want? With the devolution of corporation tax, I suspect that the easiest competition will be between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, because we have the same currency, much the same legal system, the same VAT system and the same income tax system. In fact, for almost any sensible business, the east midlands is a far more attractive place to do business than Northern Ireland. I would say that, because my constituency is there, but we have the right skills, the right location and all manner of advantages.

[Ian Swales]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sort of business decisions we are talking about are long-term decisions, and if the tax system appears to be moving around wildly among countries year by year, companies will not use it because they will not be able to rely on a long-term future?

[Nigel Mills]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why we should look ahead and see what our tax system should look like. Nobody in the UK wants a business man with a business based in Amber Valley or Redcar to think, “I could save half my corporation tax by moving to Northern Ireland.” That may help Northern Ireland, but it will not help the mainland. It will not help UK plc to attract more inward investment. We want fair competition. I accept that competition is good and that if we get investment somewhere in the UK, that is better overall, but we want investment coming in from outside, not moving around within the UK.

As a matter of fairness, if parts of the UK are to compete on corporation tax, those parts should not vote on the rate elsewhere in the UK. If Northern Ireland wants to set its own corporation tax, let us let England, Wales and Scotland set ours. If we devolve it further, the same fairness should apply. People in my constituency should be able to say, “Yes, we are competing, but we can choose whether to compete or not.” I hope that before April 2017 some sort of mechanism is in place to ensure fairness. Devolving taxes without first settling that is dangerous in constitutional terms. I am not sure it would be tolerable for Scottish MPs, for example, to set their own income tax and then to set ours as well. I accept that that is probably more of a problem than corporation tax, but it is an example of the unfair tax system that we could end up with.

An excellent Library paper that runs through the research shows on page 13 that, looking at the behavioural response to a lower rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland, even by year 4 we would see that profit shifting from the rest of the world into Northern Ireland would have an impact of £30 million a year, but that profit shifting from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would have an impact of £60 million a year. That is twice the impact of new foreign direct investment. Tax-motivated incorporation would have a potential impact of £45 million —even more than foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland. I hope that the measures in the Bill will reduce the likelihood of the latter possibility. The easiest way of competing will be to move around within a regime rather than try to attract investment into the UK that would not have come here in the first place.

That leads me to look at how cluttered some of these proposals will make the corporation tax system. This is not a simple set of things to understand. A company that has its tax base in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will have to work its way through some fairly complex situations. There were simpler options. We could have just had an allocation key that worked out one profit and then how much of it would be taxed in Northern Ireland and how much in the rest of the UK, based on employees and sales. It could have ended up a bit like the awful EU tax base that was thought up. However, within the UK, that might have worked, being easier to understand and removing some of the distortions of attempts at tax avoidance. Taxation based on sales is much harder to fix.

There are still some gaps in these proposals. It is absolutely right that we have stopped allowing finance companies to get the lower tax rate. Otherwise every large corporate would have had a finance company based in Belfast doing its finance for the rest of the UK and moving profit over there artificially. That would have been unacceptable.

How do we stop other things happening that we might not like? What about intellectual property planning? If I move all my brand names over to Northern Ireland, can I charge large royalties in the rest of the UK and artificially move profit in that way? That is not caught by the restrictions in the Bill. It is not moving jobs or creating real value; it is just moving assets around a regime and trying to get a tax advantage.

On the flipside, there are some wrinkles in how we have tackled the finance company exemption. Under the definitions in clause 17, I am not sure what happens in the case of a company trading in Northern Ireland that makes a lot of profit, ends up with some cash at the end of the year, and thinks, “Okay, I’ve got another important investment project in 18 months’ time, so perhaps I’ll lend this cash around to somewhere else in my group of companies and make a bit of interest income.” It is then engaging in a lending activity. Has that blown it out of the whole lower rate because it now has an excluded activity, or is only the interest taxed at the higher rate, and because it is a very small part of its activity, that is okay? I am not quite clear about how we tackle real, practical situations such as that.

I am not convinced that the situation for small and medium-sized companies is entirely fair. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is no longer here, said that some construction companies in Northern Ireland end up with lots of building work on the mainland because that is where the work has been. If, during the year, such a company gets a big contract on the mainland, it then has to track whether the profit from that becomes more than a quarter of its total activity. If it is 26% by the year end, it pays 20% corporation tax on the whole of its profits, whereas if it is 24% at the year end, it pays 10% on the whole of its profits.

I accept that for the vast majority of SMEs that do not trade on the mainland and operate just in Northern Ireland, that will be a very simple situation, and one small contract will not hurt. However, I suspect that SMEs trading in both areas will be in a worse position than a large company, because a large company that had 26% of its activity on the mainland would still get the lower rate for most of its profits, but a small company will lose it for most of its profits. Perhaps there could be a way of allowing an SME to elect to be in the large company regime if that better reflects its needs. Another option would be to have two separate companies and split their activities, but that does not strike me as a very easy situation. There are some issues that may lead to unintended complexities.

We need to think through exactly which activities we do not want to qualify for the lower rate. We have a new diverted profits tax coming, whereby if someone moves an activity that ought to be somewhere else, we will try to tax it at a higher rate than our UK standard rate. Under one of the provisions, someone who is being taxed at a rate of less than 80% of the UK rate will be caught. Clearly, Northern Ireland is likely to have a tax rate of less than 80% of the main UK rate. If a Northern Ireland company has an internet trading business or a mail order business in Belfast and takes careful steps to avoid having an establishment on the UK mainland, could that company be caught by the diverted profits tax, triggering a higher rate than if it was in the UK? How can we stop people artificially putting trading activity using very few employees into Belfast, rather than doing it on the mainland, to get the lower rate? I accept that no one wants the rate to apply to activity involving no employees, but I sense that certain activities that do not require much labour might be moved, which is not what we intend.

I welcome the principle of the Bill. I have some concerns about rushing it through now without thinking about how it affects the UK as a whole—we need to do that if we are to get a tax system that is sustainable in the long term—about how cluttered we are making our corporation tax system and about whether things in the Bill’s details might make the system work in a way that we do not want, but I suggest that we think through such issues in Committee.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Nigel Mills and Ian Swales

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and welcome the many positive measures in the Bill, which will substantially improve the pensions landscape in the UK—not before time, perhaps. I wish to touch on the two main areas that the debate is focused on: the introduction of the defined-ambition or shared-risk scheme, and the move to get flexibility at retirement age and the guidance that that involves.

We should pay tribute to the Minister for the fact that we have defined ambition in a piece of legislation; it has been almost a one-man dream for most of this Parliament, and perhaps we all thought it would not quite make it, but here it is in the Bill. If I appear generous in my praise for my coalition colleague, let me say that it was a brave thing for any politician to try to define a promise. We have all struggled with this: when is a promise not a promise? We know now that a promise is not a promise when it is an ambition. I think we were tortuously trying to work out in this Bill how to say what constitutes a complete pension promise and where something is not quite a promise but an aspiration, a hint, a suggestion or something more than a hope. I think that the Bill’s definition just about gets there, but I am not totally sure, without trying to work it through in various scenarios, that I can work out when a full pensions promise perhaps becomes a partial promise. That goes to the nub of the matter.

When we try to get into the detail of how we regulate these things and move them forward, we find how much of a promise or how much certainty or expectation can be created to allow one of these schemes to become a shared-risk scheme rather than a defined-benefits scheme or something that is no more meaningful than an existing defined-contributions scheme. Working out exactly what a good employer who is trying to be generous and helpful to their staff can say without falling foul of some of these rules will be hard. I assume that what we are trying to do is to say that under a defined-benefits scheme, if a person finishes their role on £30,000 a year, they will get a £20,000 a year pension. That is clearly a defined benefit. I suspect that what we are trying to say under defined ambition is that if a person finishes their role on £30,000 a year, and investment returns and longevity are just about what we expect, we think that we will be able to give them £20,000 a year. But if those assumptions are a bit out, we might have to put in a bit more money ourselves and they will get £18,000 rather £20,000. I suspect that that is the sort of promise we are trying to achieve with a shared-risk scheme.

It is not clear exactly how we can set the parameters. For example, when can £20,000 become £10,000? If there is a higher investment return, contributions can be reduced and we may still think that we can get £20,000. I think that we will just end up dropping back into regulatory uncertainty and all the issues that we have had on defined-benefits schemes. A lot of work needs to be done to get these schemes out in the market. We need to understand exactly how much risk the employer is running and how much certainty the individual gets; otherwise we are left with the difficult situation the Minister alluded to, where one side thinks it is an actual promise and the other side thinks it is a kind of hope. It probably means that whoever regulates these new shared-risk schemes will have an incredibly important role. In some ways, it will be even more difficult for trustees to administer defined-benefits schemes. I sense we will need a very competent and focused regulator looking at these things.

As I said in my intervention, it is a little difficult to see where the line will be drawn between defined benefit and defined ambition and between defined ambition, defined contributions plus and pure defined contributions. I suspect that before these things get into full speed, we will need one regulator doing all those things. If a scheme makes a bit of a promise and then withdraws it, does it drop out from being a defined ambition and become something else?

[Ian Swales]

My hon. Friend raises some excellent points. He does not specifically mention governance, which could make the thing slightly more complex because there is a third leg to the stool between the employer and employee. The explanatory notes talk about comparisons with schemes in other countries and use the expression “when governed appropriately” when talking about what schemes can provide. Has he any comments about the governance situation?

[Nigel Mills]

Yes. I have not been totally clear. I was alluding to the fact that these schemes will be even harder for trustees. I meant the trustees who try to govern these schemes. If we have a scheme that is giving a clear promise, we can create a set of assumptions. We will know how much funding we will need on top of our investment returns and longevity predictions. We will at least have some fixed parameters, so we can then define the contributions. If we even vary what we are promising to pay, we would have to take a really educated decision and say, “Shall we vary the promise down from £20,000 to £18,000, put up the contributions or a bit of both? Will it all be all right again in five years?” That will become quite difficult for trustees, and we will then really need the regulator to be able to check that trustees are capable and competent at dealing with shifting sands in these calculations.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Debate between Nigel Mills and Ian Swales

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

I might be tempted to agree that there is some merit in looking at the level of business rate cost, but I am not sure there is much merit in the proposal we are debating here this afternoon for yet another review. I welcome the measures the Government have taken to reduce business rates, or least reducing the increase through the 2% cap and discount for high street businesses. I think we are all very keen to see how we can help our high streets grow. That reduction has to be the right way forward.

Returning to the earliest of the series of interventions, on a 20% capital gains tax rate, companies that realise a capital gain will be paying at 20%. It is only individuals who will end up paying the higher rate. There is sense in having symmetry restored to that situation. I wholeheartedly support getting the corporation tax rate down to 20%. We could trumpet it around the world that we have one of the lowest rates in the G8. That long-term direction of travel has to be one of the most powerful ways to encourage investment in this country by the large corporations we want to see operating here. It would perhaps stop them setting up their headquarters in Switzerland, Ireland or elsewhere. This is now a trend we can see: large corporations choosing to bring more jobs to, and paying tax in, the UK.

[Ian Swales]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, as he always does on these matters. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that Hitachi has decided to relocate its rail headquarters to the UK, in the north-east?

[Nigel Mills]

I am always a little nervous talking about Hitachi and rail, as I am from Derbyshire. I support Bombardier and want it to get rail contracts. I am sure that it is great news for the country and the north-east that Hitachi has chosen to do that. However, I clearly say that Bombardier is a far better make of trains and that it fully deserves the Crossrail contract it got in recent weeks. I look forward to healthy competition between the two. It would be great to have two well-regarded, highly skilled train makers in this country. Just to be clear: Bombardier clearly has the trump card on that.

It would be a terrible message to send out to the rest of the world, having seen us go so far in the right direction by reducing the rate of corporation tax from 28% down to the planned 20%, to suddenly start reversing that journey and saying, “Perhaps we’re not quite so sure that that was the right thing to do. Let’s have that extra revenue back and not support those businesses.” That would be the wrong thing to do.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Nigel Mills and Ian Swales

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

I think we recognise that in any change some people will lose out—it was particularly difficult to explain that point to those women whose retirement age increased at the start of this Parliament—but sadly these things are necessary in our financial situation.

[Ian Swales]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s expertise on these issues. Does he agree that we have a big job to do on communication, not just around the new flat-rate pension, but around how various groups will be affected? For example, MPs are already getting representations from existing pensioners who feel that the new arrangements are unfair on them. Communication is key.

[Nigel Mills]

I agree wholeheartedly. I think we have all had people come to us with calculations saying, “What will I get under this new pension? What would I have got?” When trying to talk them through it, there is an especial problem with people who do not understand that those who have contracted out for most of their working life will not get the full £143. They think a bonus is coming—that they will be £35 a week better off—whereas they might just miss out. We need to write to people before the change, saying, “Here’s what you’ve accrued”, “Here’s what will happen after the change”, “It looks like you’ll get your full £143 a week”, “It look like you won’t get the full £143 a week”, “Here’s what you can do”, “Are you due any credits for periods spent caring for children or other things?”, “Have you missed any years’ contributions?” We have to communicate all that clearly so that people have the information in time to make those decisions.

Corporate Tax Avoidance

Debate between Nigel Mills and Ian Swales

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Amazon has already been found out for charging 20% when it should have been charging 3% on e-books.

Should we care about all that? Yes, we should. There is the obvious point about the loss of billions in Government revenue, leading to higher taxes on other parts of the economy or cuts in services, including the very infrastructure and services on which a tax-avoiding company and its employees might depend. Then there is the question of competition. My previous experience was in the global chemicals industry, but in the internet and franchising age, the unfair effects can hit anyone. Our high streets are now subject to global competition in burger restaurants, bookshops and coffee bars. Local bookmakers have largely disappeared rather than trying to compete with rivals operating from Gibraltar—on paper. Most retailers are competing not only with the unstoppable rise of the internet but with offshore-based giants such as Amazon and eBay. The list of national and local UK businesses that cannot compete will get longer and longer: Comet was the latest to go broke, just before Christmas, probably costing the UK taxpayer £50 million.

Companies that pile up untaxed revenue in tax havens also have enormous financial muscle to reinvest cheaply or take out any other business they want to. It was recently estimated that the world’s tax havens hold $13 trillion of cash, which is the total GDP of the USA plus Japan, or enough to buy the entire London stock market four times over. That highlights the compound effect of tax avoidance, as those companies benefit from not paying the tax to begin with and can then use that money to compete ever more aggressively.

The big accountancy firms have led the charge in devising schemes from which companies benefit. What world do they envisage? If more and more companies routinely avoid taxes, the Government will get revenue only from people stuck as employees on pay-as-you-earn, and from property taxes, business rates and ever-increasing VAT and duty from the companies that cannot find ways to avoid them. There will be a net move from tax on companies to tax on individuals, and if that trend continues, only companies with offshore tax havens will be able to compete. A nation of shopkeepers will be run out of business. There is also a threat to our political system, because we cannot expect all those who pay their taxes fully and fairly to keep on tolerating such abuses indefinitely. UK Uncut might be just the start of the protests.

I have been talking about the problem; now I want to explore ideas for action. First, having a national tax system operating in an international business world means that we need to police our financial borders just as rigorously as we police our physical borders for illegal movements of people, counterfeit goods, drugs or any other activity that we want to control. We must say that if a sale or business activity takes place in the UK it should be accounted for in the UK. The idea that an item can be manufactured in the UK, stored in the UK and shipped to a UK customer, but invoiced from Luxembourg, must be challenged.

We should then force transparency into the system. UK companies doing the right thing report their profits and taxes paid to Companies House in some detail, so the blanket taxpayer confidentiality regime in HMRC, which prevents the disclosure of tax affairs not only to Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee but to HMRC’s own non-executive directors, mainly helps the international tax avoiders. It is time for the publication of simple statistics that are mostly available anyway in Companies House, as that would force companies to justify their behaviour. Transparency and honesty with consumers are important. If companies have nothing to hide, they will have nothing to fear.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one thing we could do is require large companies to file their corporation tax returns with their accounts at Companies House? Then, from their accounts, we could all see their taxable profits and how they got them.

[Ian Swales]

I appreciate that intervention, because I know that the hon. Gentleman has great experience in this area. He goes further than I was proposing, but it is certainly a good idea.

Transparency and honesty are important. As we have seen recently with Starbucks, transparency can lead to consumer power influencing company behaviour. I hope that we will see more of that. Retail, business or government consumers who do not like the ethics or practices of a company do not have to deal with them, except perhaps in cases involving utilities.

HMRC must also be more transparent. Although it steadfastly claims that it does not do deals, Vodafone’s finance director told the City that its deal was worth £500 million a year. One lesson from that and other cases is that no high-level discussions with companies should take place without being minuted, and those minutes must be freely available to tax commissioners and the National Audit Office. The transparency must work both ways; we cannot go on operating through tinted windows.

Hot Takeaway Food (VAT)

Debate between Nigel Mills and Ian Swales

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Mills]

I suspect that that is probably right. This will put people off buying some products entirely. I was trying to say that I suspect that the customer will end up with a 20% price rise on all products and it will be down to the baker to match that loss of sale with the income that they get to keep on non-VATable stuff.

The Government need to produce coherent, understandable and enforceable rules. The suggestion that a product would definitely be VATable if any effort was made to keep it warm, by putting it in a heat-retaining bag, under a hot lamp or on a heated rack, after it had been baked would lead to an understandable and clear situation. I am not sure that it would tackle all the mischief that the Government seek to tackle, which is why it would be helpful to understand exactly what problem they want to solve. It would not stop something that looks a lot like a takeaway pretending to be a bakery, which I suspect is something that they would like to deal with.

[Ian Swales]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s tax knowledge, from which we are benefiting on the Finance Bill Committee. Does he agree that there is an EU law that requires changes in taxation to be clear and precise? From his knowledge, does he recognise that the Government could be challenged under EU law owing to the complexity of the potential change?

[Nigel Mills]

I spent many years in practice looking at areas where UK tax law could be challenged under EU law. As the years went on, the European Courts became a little more sensibly in favour of the tax authorities rather than the taxpayer, so I never like to predict what a challenge under EU law could achieve. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point; as taxpayers, we are entitled to expect clear tax law that can be sensibly enforced.

Can the Minister think of other ways to tackle the mischief he wants to tackle without putting staff in every high street in a situation where they have to finger all the products they sell? I am not suggesting that they will literally do that; they will have to have some kind of technical probe or something.

Could the Minister find a way to exempt businesses in which the sale of hot baked products accounts for no more than half their turnover? Clearly they are not in the business of selling hot food, but are trying to sell cakes and bread, so such products are but a small part of their trade. That suggestion will not fix the problem for my hon. Friends from Cornwall, who are looking at businesses based entirely on pasties, but it would take away the worst position for high street shops, for which there are definitely unintended consequences. I fear that otherwise we will end up with a measure that will not work, will clobber the innocent, and those who flout it will find a way to redesign their businesses to get out of it. That is the worst situation—innocents caught in the crossfire. Some people have pushed the whole system too far.

We all know that thirty years ago, Lord Lawson tried to exempt bakeries that produced freshly baked goods. We have a picture of bakers putting things in ovens at 5 o’clock in the morning and customers queuing to buy hot bread, and that clearly should not be VATable. That is not really what happens in most high street bakeries, where the goods are baked in a central bakery and appear in the shop early in the morning. It is unlikely that I would get hot bread, unless I was in the shop nearest to the central bakery very early in the morning. We need to get away from that quaint image that probably applies only to a factory outlet bakery of the type that Luke Evans has. I do not think that most of the baked products I buy are hot, except for those that are carefully baked on site, and they tend to be the products that the customer wants to have a chance to eat hot. That is the line we need to work around.

What exactly are we concerned about? What mischief are we trying to fix? What are we trying to protect? The proposals the Government are consulting on will not get them to where we all want them to be and will need some careful revision.