Economic Update

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

We are not going to do fracking unless it has local consent, but I also say, as someone who believes passionately that we have to do more on climate change, that it is not helping climate change to import hydrocarbons from other countries and say that as a result we are being very virtuous in reducing our own emissions. We need to do what it takes to reduce overall emissions.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Can I thank the Chancellor in advance for what he has promised to publish over the next two weeks because it will be the starkest ever confirmation of the awful price of Better Together?

Unless you are a banker on a bumper bonus, which not many of my constituents are, you are looking at higher food prices, higher fuel prices, higher mortgages, reducing wages in real terms, falling benefits in real terms and savage real-terms cuts in public services. Alternatively, my constituents could be building towards a Scotland that is creating 385,000 jobs in renewable energy, producing between three and four times as much energy as we need, and—who knows?—maybe even selling it on at mates’ rates to our friends and neighbours, as long as they treat us well. I respect the Chancellor’s right to dismiss that future. I think he is doing himself an injustice by basing his dismissal on blind, evidence-light dogma, rather than looking at the facts, but does he accept that it is not for him, anyone on the Government Benches or, indeed, anyone on the Opposition Benches to deny my constituents the right to choose between those two futures?

Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Does the Minister accept that, regardless of what the Government have done, my constituents can expect to pay double for their energy bills this year compared with what they paid last year?

[Chris Philp]

The energy price guarantee ensures that the average household pays no more than £2,500 a year. The hon. Gentleman is correct that that is higher than average bills this time last year, and that is why the comprehensive package was put in place earlier this year. It amounts to a further £37 billion, and ensures that households on the lower one third of incomes receive £1,200 per year, which pretty much fills the gap that he described. The energy price guarantee, combined with that £37 billion intervention, is the kind of thing we can do as a Union and as a United Kingdom. It is the kind of thing we can do together that would be so much harder apart, and that is one of the benefits of our precious Union. There is a lot more in the growth plan, but I will not labour the point because we are here to talk about the health and social care levy.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is fair to say that it is a bit of a novelty for me to be called so early, and without a time limit, in a debate. I am very grateful, not least because how we pay for healthcare is one of the single most important subjects in British politics. That is essentially what we are debating today, and I feel strongly on this subject. The core principle must be one that I have always held as a Conservative, which is that we are fiscally responsible. As with the environment, we must aim to leave things in a better condition for future generations and, with the public finances, have in mind at all times the impact on those yet to be born—on our grandchildren—so that we are fiscally responsible. That is the fundamental belief of my party, in my view.

With that in mind, there is a lot of excitement about what the OBR will say on Hallowe’en, but it has already pronounced on the matter of health expenditure. In July it published “Fiscal risks and sustainability”, a fascinating bedtime read. The crucial thing is what it says about the OBR’s estimate for the future cost of healthcare in this country. It predicts that the current spend on health and adult social care will go from around 10.3% of GDP to 17.5% of GDP in 50 years’ time. That is an extraordinary increase—almost double—and it would take up so much more of our wealth and public expenditure. The OBR’s track record is very accurate on estimating health spend. It is based on a lot of cautious variables that are obviously difficult to predict, but essentially this is, if you like, cutting the mustard in telling us the future cost we have to face up to.

To put this in context, the OBR estimates that the headline estimate for public debt that we will be passing to our grandchildren will be 100% of GDP in 30 years’ time and that in 50 years’ time it will be 267% of GDP. That is what it says in this document. If we carry on as we are, we will have a national debt of 267% of GDP because of the rising cost of what is called demographics. That is mainly healthcare but also the state pension and other aspects of the pensions system. Overwhelmingly, however, it is healthcare. Adult social care will double as a percentage of GDP as well.

I should declare an interest in the sense that I had an indirect role in the creation of the health and social care levy, and it is fair to say that I have many reservations about what we are doing today. As colleagues know, the former Prime Minister—who deserves great credit for this—was determined that we would not just have another Green Paper or White Paper on social care. He wanted to actually deliver something for the country and he introduced the cap that had been promised by successive Governments, so that although people who have saved hard and have assets have to contribute to their care, they know that there is a limit. It is incredibly important that we brought that forward, and I sincerely hope that in removing the funding mechanism for the cap, the Treasury will resist the temptation to water it down. Local authorities are not yet aware of exactly what the cap will cover, and with the funding stream gone, the Treasury must resist the temptation to water the cap down. That is absolutely paramount.

When the Prime Minister came forward with wanting to pursue the cap, it was the view of the then Chancellor —my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who I had the privilege of being Parliamentary Private Secretary to throughout the pandemic—that it must be funded, and that it could not just go on the national credit card. The social care cap on its own is massive rising liability. I have just set out what is going to happen to health costs more generally. So, how to fund social care? The most common suggestion was an increase in national insurance, for the simple reason that it applies to businesses and individuals and so raises the sorts of revenue we can get. It is not easily avoided, and it can give us the money in the bank to pay for these expensive costs that we face.

However, I submitted a paper to the Chancellor at the time and suggested that, rather than having just a narrow national insurance levy—a social care levy, as it were—we should have a full health and social care levy that should be hypothecated and appear as an explicit line on people’s payslips. It will be there on our payslips until November. I accept that we have not made the most of it, and there has been almost no enthusiasm from any quarter—possibly only from the social care sector—but with a transparent, hypothecated statement on payslips, if the NHS came back to us two years into a five-year funding settlement saying, “We need this additional big item,” we could say, “Fine, but it will come out of the levy.” That would be transparent, and it would have provided the discipline that we have terribly lacked in health spending for many years, under successive Governments. I thought it had great potential, but it is being vapourised today. The Prime Minister has a mandate for it and the whole House seems to support that view, as does the Labour party even though it does not have the foggiest idea how it would fill the gap.

[Peter Grant]

The former Prime Minister had a mandate to do what he did last year. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says the new Prime Minister has a mandate to do this. Where did that mandate come from? I do not remember Parliament being dissolved for a general election in the last couple of months.

[James Cartlidge]

The new Prime Minister would rightly say that our manifesto said we would not increase national insurance, so she can draw on the mandate of the general election. We also seem to have vapourised our memory of the pandemic, but I would argue that it changed everything. The enormous borrowing accrued to this Government during the pandemic, which everyone supported—everyone wanted even more spending and even more support for businesses and individuals, as I remember because I was the then Chancellor’s PPS—made it exceptional, and we had to balance the books. I make it clear that this was not my preference, as I would not have wanted a levy to fund the NHS and social care. Given the politics of the time, it was the best way forward.

This is my personal view about how we should move forward. The key point is that the NHS is free at the point of delivery, which means we pay with time. When something is free, people wait and there are massive queues. Of course, those queues have been massively exacerbated by the pandemic, which is why the backlogs are so big, but it is blindingly obvious that the pressure on the NHS is overwhelming. There is almost infinite demand on finite capacity.

Labour Members will say in any election campaign, as we will. “We will do everything possible to increase capacity.” The Deputy Prime Minister and Health Secretary will, of course, do everything possible through her ABCD—ambulances, backlogs, care, doctors and dentists —strategy to improve outcomes in the NHS, but when we talk about funding the NHS, when we talk about the obligation to our grandchildren and the next generation, we have to be more radical, frankly.

In my view, we need a core NHS that is free at the point of delivery, but as a country we need to drive up the use of the independent sector and of private healthcare from all those brilliant companies that are seeing take-up shoot through the roof because of the backlogs. I know some of this territory is difficult to talk about, but I will give three key reasons why we should go down this route. First, every single person who pays to go private is freeing up space on the backlog. They are also boosting NHS capacity.

Secondly, this is standard in comparable countries. The Republic of Ireland, Australia and Germany have tax incentives for people to pay for their healthcare. There is an understanding that people who go to that trouble should have some kind of rebate, because they are doing everyone else a favour.

Thirdly, this is already happening. The post-Beveridge revolution is happening, and it is happening silently. There has been a massive surge in the number of people paying privately for healthcare. The Guardian recently published figures estimating that one in 10 adults in the UK has paid for private healthcare in the past 12 months, primarily because of the backlogs. Use has surged, according to the Independent Healthcare Providers Network. The number of people paying for hip replacements was up 193% in January to March 2022 compared with January to March 2019, and the number of people paying for knee replacements was up 173%. This is a huge surge in the number of people paying privately. It is true that many of them will not have wanted to do so, and I am not suggesting that they will have been delighted. Of course, we all want everyone to be able to use the NHS without long waits—that is clearly the ideal scenario—but it is not deliverable any more, not least with the demographic pressures we face.

We should look at the surging use of the independent sector and embrace it as a policy opportunity. Research from the Independent Healthcare Providers Network shows that 48% of people in this country will consider going private in the next 12 months because they know about the waits. This is about choice, and the most important thing is to have greater tax incentives for people to use the independent sector, so that people think about making a realistic choice. We should not settle for long waits for care any more. This is standard practice in comparable European and Australasian countries.

To be very specific, going back to the OBR document I mentioned, as a country we face a huge liability for health and social care. We should target increasing the percentage of our healthcare spend that goes to the independent sector so that we have a better balance, more like the balance in comparable European countries. If we did that, we would get much better outcomes, we would have more choice and we would finally have a 21st-century healthcare system with diversity of provision, which is the best way forward.

We should recognise that the revolution is happening, and it needs to happen with the Government’s backing and support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I do not often say this, but I welcome the decision that the Government have taken, which is to U-turn on their increase in national insurance contributions, although I utterly reject any suggestion that it should be coupled with any watering down of the previous commitments on funding for health and social care services.

I do not think that national insurance is the right name for this tax. It is an income tax—a jobs tax—and we should be honest about what it is doing. It is a jobs tax because if a person has a job, they pay tax on the money that they get paid for doing their job— unless they are earning way below the minimum full-time wage. If they are an employer, they pay tax on the wages that they pay someone for doing the job for them. It is only if a person is lucky enough to be able to make most of their money from owning shares or property that they can earn significant amounts of money without paying national insurance on that income. I have to say that not many of my constituents who are struggling on a minimum wage and part-time jobs are that impressed by the fact that they can get national insurance-free income from their share portfolios, because they cannot afford to buy them in the first place.

This is a form of income tax—a jobs tax—specifically targeted at working people. It is not even an insurance as such. I pay insurance on my car. If I am involved in an accident, I have a guarantee that the insurance company will pay its share of the costs. People do not get that guarantee just because they have been paying national insurance contributions all their life. Just ask the WASPI women—of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—how much of an insurance scheme guarantee they actually get from national insurance.

The legislation that we are being asked to repeal today—and it looks like it will be repealed today without a Division—introduced a form of hypothecated tax, which is not something that I would generally support. Nobody has really mentioned that in this debate, and it did not get much coverage in the debate last year. Other than for very time-limited and precisely defined purposes, hypothecated taxes do not really work. Filling in a small part of the decades-long underfunding in some of our most important public services is neither time limited nor specific.

Whatever we are going to do to change the tax system to get adequate funding for these services, a single, specific hypothecated tax is never going to be it. I have been consistent on this. I find it interesting that nobody who has spoken in this debate in favour of repealing the levy has explained why they voted for it in the first place last year. I note that sometimes people are allowed to change their minds regularly, whereas at other times people are not allowed to change their minds from eight years ago.

Our health and social care services are among our most precious public services. Universal healthcare—including free prescriptions—free at the point of delivery, based only on clinical need rather than the ability to pay, is surely an essential part of any civilised society. I would say the same about social care. I am proud that in Scotland we have free personal care for those who need it, regardless of whether they can afford to pay for it. I welcome the steps that the Scottish Government have taken to reduce the financial burden on those who need other forms of social care as well. All of these services are available to everybody and they should be paid for by everybody according to our means through general taxation. I am not ashamed to say that if I had to pay a wee bit extra tax that I could easily afford in order to provide a civilised society for my people to live in, I would do so willingly.

Those principles are now under direct attack, even more so than they were under the previous Prime Minister, and even more so than they were in the dark days of Margaret Thatcher. We now have a Prime Minister who has chosen to surround herself with people whose links to the NHS privatisation lobby are not hard to find. It does not need to be direct privatisation; it is very easy to privatise the health service by stealth, simply by strangling it of funds so that the waiting list becomes so long that people choose to pay for a health service that they have already paid for through their taxes.

That is why it is essential that we get a commitment from this Government that not only will there not be a reduction in cash terms in health service funding or in social care funding, but that those budgets will increase by enough to cover the cost of inflation as it hits those services. Historically, inflation in the health service has usually been higher than the headline rate of inflation. The headline rate of inflation is savage enough just now. It is likely that the true cost of inflation to the health service is even higher. I asked the Chancellor about this directly a few weeks ago when he issued his mini-Budget. Scandalously, he refused to give a commitment that funding in the health service will even keep pace with inflation, never mind increasing to meet what we can all see is an unmet demand.

Part of the reason that the NHS is coming under unprecedented pressure is that the policies and deliberate choices of this Government and their predecessors have forced people into poverty and destitution, and that has an impact on people’s health, which creates additional demand on the NHS. As others have pointed out, having people on health service waiting lists unable to work damages the economy. If the economy is damaged in such a way that it affects the funding of the health service—if, for example, people are given lower wages, are put under financial stress and are unable to afford the cost of living—that in turn damages our health, and to an extent that we perhaps have not properly realised until recently.

A recent study by the University of Glasgow and the Glasgow Centre for Population Health found nearly 335,000 excess deaths in the UK in the past seven years that were caused by austerity. Deliberate policy choices by this and previous Tory Governments since 2012 have killed more people than the covid pandemic. That is a scandalous thing to happen in any country that claims to be civilised. That is why we cannot fully consider the provisions of this Bill, or the provisions of the Act of Parliament that it seeks to repeal, in isolation from the wider policies of a Government who seem hellbent on plunging even more people into poverty, while lining the pockets of their own billionaire supporters and donors.

To give just one example, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was delighted to tell us earlier that the combination of not increasing the national insurance levy and the previously announced changes to income tax thresholds will amount to a whopping £500 per year back in the pockets of my lowest-earning constituents. They are paying between £1,200 and £1,500 a year more just for the heat in their homes compared with last year, so the generous £500 a year that the Government are putting back into their pockets is less than half of what my constituents need just to stand still for electricity and gas prices. That is before they start to pay their increased costs of food, rent and mortgages for those able to buy their own homes.

That should not be inevitable. My constituents live in a country in which 85% of energy does not come from gas, so why do they see their bills doubling when there is a gas shortage? My constituents live in a country that supplies more energy than it needs and has a commodity that is in short supply, so why are they so much worse off when the value of the commodity that we have in surplus increases on the global market? Those are not questions that Treasury Ministers or other Ministers in this place do not know the answers to; they are questions that they are scared to face up to the answers to.

Repealing this legislation when the ink is hardly dry on the paper serves to illustrate yet again the total chaos that this Government are in. That chaos has spread to the whole of these islands, and they seem quite happy to inflict it on the financial markets, despite the impact they know it will have on people’s standard of living now and the pensions they will be able to rely on in the future.

The Government’s persistent refusal to provide a costed plan to ensure sufficient and sustainable funding for those vital services, directly through funding in England and indirectly through Barnett consequentials on the devolved nations, and their persistent refusal to put health and social care services on a proper and sustainable funding basis demonstrate clearly that our national health service can never be safe in the hands of this or any other Westminster Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this relatively short debate. I think it is fair to say that none of us came here expecting to find a perfect consensus, but it was rather pleasing to hear the measure welcomed by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). I thank all those Opposition Members for their support.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and my long-standing hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) for their speeches and my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Salisbury (John Glen) for their interventions. If there was one message from the four of them, it was on the importance of fiscal responsibility. That was heard loud and clear, and it has been resonated by the Chancellor again and again, including today. Truly, it is the essence of conservatism, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said. I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said about the Treasury working more closely with the OBR and about the engagement requested by the Chair of the Treasury Committee. I assure him that the Treasury team will engage as he has suggested.

This has been a serious debate for the most part. It looked like it was getting into levity at one point, when the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who unfortunately is no longer in his place, volunteered to be a member of the anti-growth coalition. He said it was important that there was a free lunch. The hon. Member for Gordon spoke about not joining a club and invoked Marx, although not the Marx who was the favourite of the former Opposition spokesperson on finance.

At times, there were clear points of ideology in respect of the plan. It is clear that the purpose of the Chancellor’s growth plan is to improve lives across the country over the long term. Growing the economy must be our guiding mission, and with this Government it is. We will do so through lower taxes, through improved infrastructure, by supporting skilled employment, by removing barriers to investment, by getting the housing market moving, by making Britain an even better place to do business and by ensuring that people who earn money keep more of it so that they can make their own decisions—that includes our businesses.

I heard from the Opposition spokesperson that their plan comprises two aspects. First, it is the Government—a Labour Government—who should decide the right way to achieve growth in this country, rather than the wealth creators and businesses. Labour wishes to make those decisions on behalf of all of us. Many of us on this side of the House know where that sort of central planning ends up.

Secondly, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the burden. I just warn hon. Members to measure how broad their shoulders are. My fear is that it is not those with broad shoulders but anyone with shoulders who bears the burden. My point is this: the starting position for Labour’s plan is that this year, 2022-23, those in the top 1% of the income distribution are estimated to receive 13% of all income, but already pay 30% of all income tax liabilities. Those in the bottom 50% of the income distribution are estimated to pay only 8.3% of all income tax. When Labour says that it wants to fund its plans through general taxation, it is not looking for the 1% to pay; it is looking for people on average and low incomes to pay. The Conservative party does not think that is the right way to achieve growth.

[Peter Grant]

Will the Minister give way?

The Growth Plan

Peter Grant Excerpts

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady does well to raise this issue, because clearly the people who benefit from a limit to the price of electricity will not include people in rural areas who are off the grid. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has announced some measure of support, and we are looking at other ways we can help people in the way the hon. Lady has described.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am very proud of the fact that Glenrothes was the first town in any of our four nations to be recognised by the Living Wage Foundation for its progress towards becoming a living wage town—and that is a proper living wage, not the Chancellor’s pretendy, kidding-on one. The Living Wage Foundation has recently confirmed that the proper living wage needs to increase by more than 10% just for people to stand still. Fife Council, other public bodies and the many private businesses that act as their suppliers are keen to continue to pay that fair living wage to all their workers. Will the Chancellor confirm that the public spending budget will guarantee adequate funding so that responsible public sector employers can continue to pay a fair wage to essential workers? Or does he expect key workers to survive on rounds of applause for another 12 months?

Cryptoassets: Regulation

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Thank you, Ms Rees, on behalf of all of us for saving this morning’s debate. It would have been a great pity if all the work that some hon. Members had put into their speeches had gone to waste. I thank my good and hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for leading the debate in such a well-informed way. From conversations I have had with him, I know that although he definitely sees the huge potential benefits of cryptocurrency, he is also all too well aware of the potential pitfalls.

My hon. Friend gave us a helpful history of cryptocurrency and, importantly, reminded us that it has a particular culture that some of us might be interested in. We have to recognise that there may be certain attitudes to risk in that culture; I think he used the phrase “have fun staying poor”. If people involved in those games—and they are games for too many people—are happy to stay poor or run the risk of being poor, that is all very well. However, many people are sucked in without understanding the risk that they might suffer significant financial losses.

My hon. Friend repeatedly referred to the crypto bubble, which is an accurate description. The one thing all bubbles have in common is that they burst; we have to ensure that regulations are brought in quickly enough to stop it being a bubble before it bursts. He also pointed to flaws in the way the Financial Conduct Authority operates, on which I agree with him wholeheartedly. He referred to the collapse of Terra, whose total value went from something like $45 billion to nil in approximately 72 hours. That is how quickly things can go either well or very badly in the world of crypto.

The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) made an interesting speech. He was correct in describing Britain as the beating heart of financial services, or words to that effect; financial services are a massive part of the economy of London and the whole United Kingdom. However, I would caution him that we must recognise the fact that, although some people are in denial, Britain—London in particular—is gaining a reputation as one of the best places in the world to commit financial services fraud. If we continue to deny that and think of it as a problem that will go away, the entire future of London as a financial services centre of excellence could be in doubt.

Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Rother Valley made a strange comment in response to the reminders of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire about the huge energy input required for crypto to operate. The hon. Gentleman said that there is no point going for a low-carbon future if that undermines our economic growth. I gently point out to him that there is no future that is not low carbon. If we do not achieve a low-carbon future, we have no future whatsoever.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I hope I can refer to as a friend, admitted to being one of the 85% who do not own cryptocurrency. It is nice to see that he is still very much in the majority with regard to some things in Northern Ireland, although he might find that that becomes a minority at some time—who knows! We could have an interesting philosophical discussion over his wee story about the young man who made so much money on crypto, increasing £1,000 to £40,000. That is slightly more modest than others who have made gains on crypto. Where did that £39,000 come from? The world did not become £39,000 richer. The amount of money in the world did not increase by that amount during that time, so somebody somewhere was £39,000 worse off, or a lot of people were a few pounds worse off. Every time somebody makes money on a speculative investment, somebody somewhere else loses it. We have to be prepared to face up to that.

I hope the Government will take the same approach I do: clearly, cryptoassets and currencies are here to stay. We cannot uninvent them. The nature of the thing is that even if we wanted to, it would be practically impossible to legislate to keep them out of the United Kingdom all together. People we are responsible for will continue to get involved in crypto. They will invest in it, play the game and speculate on it; whatever terminology we use, they are going to put their money into crypto. We have a responsibility to ensure that when they do, they are not taking risks they do not understand or running the risk of losing money they did not realise they were liable to lose. We certainly do not want to see people losing money they cannot afford to lose.

The challenge is to maximise the very obvious potential benefits while, at the same time, minimising the risks to individuals, businesses and potentially—let’s not kid ourselves—to entire economies. This thing will get big enough that if it goes wrong, it could bring down entire economies. If it goes well, clearly it would have massive benefits for us all.

Consumer protection must be at the heart of the Government’s regulatory approach. I find the implication that consumer protection has been deprioritised in the Financial Services and Markets Bill quite concerning; it will not be one of the things to which the regulators will be instructed to give high priority. I urge the Government to ignore the siren voices of some on their own Benches who call for a completely unregulated free-for-all, which would be the way to absolute disaster for the many. There would undoubtedly be untold riches for the few, but it would be a highly irresponsible approach.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank my hon. Friend so much for giving way and for the important points he is making. I wholeheartedly agree that consumer protection must be at the forefront of the work that is taken forward. Does he agree that it is important that as many people who are interested in this sector as possible get in touch with the crypto and digital assets all-party parliamentary group, which is currently engaged in an inquiry into the sector, in order to consider regulation, recommendations and consumer protection, as well as the opportunities for growth?

[Peter Grant]

I am quite happy to take that unashamed plug for the APPG. Given that it has been mentioned and will be recorded in Hansard, I have no doubt that those who are interested in its work will take up my hon. Friend’s offer.

Crypto has all the characteristics of all the great scams in history; indeed, it has most of them on a scale that very few of those other scams had. It has the possibility to become and to facilitate the biggest scam in human history, if we let it. We need to co-operate with other jurisdictions to regulate in such a way that means that the sector continues to grow and deliver benefits, but does not expose, as I have said, either individuals or potentially whole economies to unacceptable risks.

Although I welcome the Government’s steps on regulation, which I hope will be only the first steps on a much longer journey, I am concerned that what has been offered to date has been a patchy and piecemeal approach to regulation, compared to the far more comprehensive proposals in, for example, the EU’s draft regulation. I would not expect the Government to admit it, but I worry that this is another example of settling for second best just to prove that we are different from the European Union.

We should always remind ourselves that even technological advances that end up having massive benefits for humanity can have their downside. I know a lot of people, including a lot of Members of Parliament, who are only alive today because of radiology and radiotherapy, and that would not have happened without the genius and greatness of Marie Curie, who is one of the greatest human beings ever to have lived. Marie Curie was killed by her own discovery. Indeed, almost all the people who were the first to receive the benefits of the “miracle” radium pills that followed on from her discovery died a horrible death from cancer.

The message is: let us not turn our backs on new technologies or be scared of innovation, but seize the opportunities that such technologies offer. But just as developments in scientific and medical technology can carry risks for humanity as well as huge benefits, so can advances in financial technologies. The technological advances that we are seeing just now are happening at a pace that we could not have imagined even four or five years ago. That means that regulation must be flexible and able to adapt very quickly to identify where the potential risks are and to close them down.

I would like to say that we have a Financial Conduct Authority that I am happy to trust with taking that message on board, but in my heart of hearts, as I have said both here and in the main Chamber often enough, the Financial Conduct Authority as it stands is not fit for purpose. It needs to be given a significantly stronger remit and significantly greater resources. There is no doubt that the FCA is the correct place for regulation to reside, but I ask the Minister not simply to talk about what is in the Financial Services and Markets Bill just now, but to give us an indication of how quickly the gaps in regulation that will still exist after the Bill has been passed will be filled. It is not only people who are enthusiastic about cryptocurrency who are watching this debate to see when regulation is going to become adequate; there are also people watching this debate who are looking for an opportunity to make vast sums of money at the expense of our constituents, if we allow them to do so.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady has made a useful point. She has identified the fact that there is an extensive amount of change in this Bill. As we repeal EU legislation, there will clearly be some measures on which there is a common view that they can easily be repealed and are unnecessary. It is right that the Treasury, and the Government, should be able to take those actions directly. Equally, there will be measures that will require full consultation by the House through secondary legislation, and I can give a commitment that that will be done apace, but with the ability for parliamentary colleagues to debate those measures fully. It is important that we achieve the primary objective of the Bill, which is to make the United Kingdom a solid global financial service centre.

In fact, the Bill has five objectives. They are to implement the outcomes of the future regulatory framework review, which involves reshaping our regulatory and legislative regime as an independent state outside the EU; to bolster the competitiveness of UK markets and promote the effective use of capital; to promote the UK’s leadership in the trading of global financial services; to harness the opportunities of innovative technologies in financial services; and to promote financial inclusion and consumer protection. I will take each of those in turn.

Let me deal first with the implementation of the outcomes of the FRF review. Clause 1 and schedule 1 repeal retained EU law for financial services so that it can be replaced with a coherent, agile and internationally respected approach to regulation that has been designed specifically for the UK. This will build on the existing model established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which empowers our independent regulators to set the detailed rules that apply to firms. They do this while operating within the framework and guard rails set by the Government and by Parliament.

Schedule 1 contains more than 200 instruments that will be repealed directly by the Bill. While in some cases these rules can simply be deleted, in many areas it is necessary to replace them with the appropriate rules for the UK, in our own domestic regulation. These instruments will therefore cease to have effect when the necessary secondary legislation and regulator rules to replace them have been put in place.

As we have already heard from Members today, giving these measures effect will require a significant programme of secondary legislation to modify and restate retained EU law. I can confirm that in most cases, this will be subject to the affirmative procedure in the House.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I welcome the Minister to his new post. Is it not a fact—I mention this partly for the benefit of those watching our proceedings who may be unfamiliar with it—that the House has the choice of taking or leaving each piece of secondary legislation that is presented to it, and Parliament will have no opportunity to amend secondary legislation if it does not think it is good enough?

[Richard Fuller]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will be plenty of opportunities for him to review each of the 200 measures in Committee, should he so wish, and to make recommendations. He will also be aware that the Government have already undertaken significant consultations with industry and others, and that there are ongoing reviews of a number of measures that are in place, some of which are contained in schedule 2. I do not feel that what he fears will actually be the case. There will be a process of consultation on a number of these measures, and there will be ample time for questions to be asked in the House as those consultation proceed.

As I have said, we have already undertaken fundamental reviews in some areas to ensure that we are seizing the opportunities of leaving the European Union, and this Bill delivers their outcomes. Let me touch on these briefly.

The Bill gives the Treasury the powers to implement reforms to Solvency II, the legislation governing prudential regulation for insurance. The Government are carefully considering all responses to their recent consultation and will set out their next steps shortly. The Bill also allows the Government to deliver on the outcomes of the UK’s prospectus regime review, taking forward key recommendations from Lord Hill’s UK listings review. These reforms will ensure that investors receive the best possible information, help to widen participation in the ownership of public companies and simplify the capital raising process for companies on UK markets. This can help to boost the UK as a destination for initial public offerings and optimise its capital raising processes.

The Bill also delivers, through schedule 2, the most urgent reforms to the markets in financial instruments directive—MIFID—framework, as identified through the wholesale markets review. It will do away with poorly designed and burdensome rules, such as the double volume cap and the share trading obligation, which will allow firms to access the most liquid markets and reduce costs for end investors. We intend to bring this into effect shortly after Royal Assent.

In reforming our regulatory framework, it is right to think about the regulators’ objectives so that they reflect the sector’s critical role in supporting the UK economy. For the first time, the Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority will be given new secondary objectives, as set out in clause 24, to facilitate growth and international competitiveness. The FCA and the PRA will do this within an unambiguous hierarchy that does not detract from their existing objectives.

It is critical that these new responsibilities for regulators are balanced with clear accountability both to the Government and to Parliament. This is addressed in clauses 27 to 42, alongside clause 46 and schedule 7. The Bill includes new requirements for the regulators to notify the relevant parliamentary Committee of a consultation and to respond in writing to formal responses to statutory consultations from parliamentary Committees. The regulators are ultimately accountable to Parliament for how they further their statutory objectives, so these measures recognise the importance of the Committee structure for holding the regulators to account. While I welcome the new Treasury Select Committee Sub-Committee, it is ultimately for Parliament to determine the best structure for its ongoing scrutiny of the financial services regulators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate—albeit from a few rows further back than I had originally anticipated—and to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for the fantastic work he did as the longest-serving City Minister to get this Bill into the fantastic shape it is in, where it is now admirably shepherded through Parliament by his very worthy successor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I also pay tribute to the fantastic team of officials, led by Gwyneth Nurse, who have spent the best part of the past year preparing what is, I believe, the most radical and significant piece of financial services legislation that this House has seen in years, if not decades.

There is so much in the Bill to comment on that in the interests of time, I will briefly focus on three things. First, the Bill appropriately seizes the opportunities of Brexit to scrap retained EU law and move to an agile system of regulation that is tailor-made for the UK. Secondly, it reforms regulations to make sure that we support economic competitiveness. Lastly, it keeps the UK at the forefront of harnessing innovative technologies and makes sure that we keep pace in a fast-moving sector.

[Peter Grant]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Rishi Sunak]

Not for now.

First, on Brexit, with the future regulatory framework, the Bill represents a significant move away from relying on retained EU law as a means of regulating the UK’s financial services sector. Clause 1 provides for a full sweeping away—a full revocation—of essentially all the retained EU law concerning financial services in the UK. This is radical and this is right. Indeed, it is what Brexit was all about and this Bill delivers it.

We will move appropriately to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2020 model where the Government set the overall policy approach and delegate the operational implementation of those regulations to the independent regulators. As my hon. Friend the Minister said this is the internationally respected gold standard for how to do this. I was pleased to hear the Minister comment on the call-in power, and I urge him and the Government to quickly bring forward the means for that power, because both my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and I believe it is the right thing to do. We talked about accountability earlier in this debate. It must be right for a democratically elected Government, with the consent of this House, on an exceptional basis, to intervene on financial regulation in the public interest, and I hope that the Government will follow through with those plans.

On what this Bill does to support competitiveness, for the first time, our financial regulators will have a new statutory objective to support international competitiveness and growth, moving us in line with jurisdictions such as Australia, Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong. There will be new statutory panels to give better external scrutiny and challenge on the regulators’ cost benefit analyses. We heard much about the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive over the past several weeks and I am pleased that the Bill brings forward those reforms to MiFID: to remove restrictions such as the double volume cap when trading in wholesale capital markets to improve pricing for investors; to modify the transparency regime in fixed income and derivatives to remove unnecessary burdens; and to modify the commodities position limits so that market activity is not unreasonably restricted.

There are three areas on which I urge the Government to consider going further than I think we heard in the Minister’s opening remarks. First, to improve the efficiency of capital markets raising, there is an opportunity to reform European regulations in the prospectus directive. I hope the Government will bring forward draft statutory instruments for us to consider during the Bill’s passage. Secondly, the European packaged retail and insurance-based investment products directive is ripe for reform. I suggest repealing PRIIPS and replacing it with a tailor-made regime specifically for UK markets. This will eliminate a counterproductive regulation, broaden the range of products available for UK investors and, indeed, increase UK retail participation in our financial markets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It gives me pleasure to speak on this Bill on behalf of the Scottish National party. I am going to agree with the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), for the first and probably the last time in either of our careers, in placing on record my thanks to his colleague the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for the constructive and courteous way in which he conducted a large number of debates with me during his time in office.

When the SNP decided to table a reasoned amendment asking the House not to give this Bill a Second Reading, we did so with a significant degree of reluctance, because there is a lot in the Bill that we see as not only desirable, but essential and, in some cases, long overdue. It is disappointing that the Government have chosen to package them with other provisions that give us very serious concern, and to package them in such a way that it will probably prove to be impossible to amend the Bill to take out the damaging parts.

For example, we welcome the provisions relating to the regulation of digital settlement assets or cryptocurrencies and on access to cash—we would have welcomed them several years ago, if the Government could have been bothered to bring them in. Our only real concern is that they do not yet go far enough. However, the dangers posed by other more substantial parts of the Bill are so great that they may be too high a price to pay to get those necessary pieces of legislation on the statute book.

In the Queen’s Speech we were promised a Bill that would,

“strengthen the United Kingdom’s financial services industry, ensuring that it continues to act in the interest of all people and communities”.

This Bill does not do that. In fact, the former Chancellor has confirmed what the Minister strongly hinted at: the Government’s main objective here is to force through a damaging, totally unnecessary divergence from our European Union neighbours, for no other reason than that they can.

The very first sentence in clause 1, which the former Chancellor thinks is a great idea, invites us to wipe out well over 200 pieces of legislation with no idea what will replace them. The Bill gives the Treasury the power to decide when and if each of those 200-plus laws is revoked and the Treasury gets the power to decide when, if ever, it will bring forward replacement legislation for them. Despite the Minister’s apparently not understanding our concerns earlier on, if that is done through secondary legislation in delegated legislation Committees, there will be no opportunity for the House to amend it, to make it better or to insist on legislation’s coming forward if the Government do not want to bring it.

The Bill gives the Treasury the power to amend or revoke Acts passed by this whole Parliament, and to revoke laws passed under devolved authority by the elected national Parliaments and Assemblies of three quarters of the supposedly equal partners in this Union. A Treasury whose Ministers were appointed by a Prime Minister who got the first-choice votes of 14% of her own Members of Parliament will be allowed to overrule Parliaments elected on a franchise of more than 8 million citizens. How can that be anything other than an unacceptable power grab? That is because of the Government’s obsession with purging our four nations, even those that wanted to stay in, of anything that they regard as tainted by contact with the European Union.

There has not been any attempt to sift the 200-plus pieces of retained EU law to identify which are helpful and necessary and which are potentially damaging. If it has an EU tag, it has to go. There is even a sweep-up provision in part 5 of schedule 1 that says that if they discover any other EU legislation hiding somewhere that was missed from the schedule, that will automatically go as well. We have literally been asked to agree to revoke legislation that none of us knows is there. Even the people who drafted the Bill do not know what that legislation might say. That would be a gross abdication of our responsibility as Members of Parliament.

I find it comical that barely 24 hours ago the sacked Prime Minister was still spouting nonsense about getting Brexit done. Now we are told that not only are there hundreds of bits of Brexit that have not been done yet—and that is only in financial services and markets—but that no one knows where they all are, how many there are or what they say. Brexit has not been done by a long chalk.

Turning to the specific powers in other parts of the Bill, we generally welcome the new regulatory powers and related matters in part 2, but the Minister will appreciate that we will want to look closely at the detail in the Bill Committee. I am concerned that the Committee will be pushed for time, despite the number of days that it has been allocated. Members will be well aware of concerns I have often raised about the inadequacies of the Financial Conduct Authority’s powers and resourcing, as well as its reluctance to use the powers that it has.

The Labour spokesperson mentioned the lack of effective anti-fraud measures in the Bill, which is a major concern. Financial fraud and scams are becoming a bigger menace every day, and they hit hardest the people who can least afford to be hit. Something I have noticed about a lot of the financial scams I have looked into on behalf of my constituents is that they have features that are not immediately obvious. They often involve company directors effectively soliciting loans from the general public in order to finance their own investments. Rather than put their own money at risk, they put someone else’s money at risk. If the investment goes well, the directors win; if it goes badly the victims lose and the directors walk away Scot free. That was an obvious feature in the Blackmore Bond scandal, but exactly the same thing happened with Safe Hands funeral plans. Safe Hands appeared to be a funeral plan scam, but that was not the case. The company blatantly lied to its customers about how their money would be safeguarded, and it used it to invest in potentially profitable but high-risk offshore investments. Although it appeared at first glance to be a funeral plan, Safe Hands was in fact a good old-fashioned financial services scam.

When Safe Hands was on the way down, regulations were coming into force that meant that funeral plan providers had to be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority, which I warmly welcome. However, we should provide the same degree of regulation and the same protection to customers for other “pay now, collect later” schemes. If a customer gives their money to a company that blows it and they lose their money, it does not matter whether they thought their money would fund at some future date the cost of a funeral, a wedding, their children going to university, or anything else. The risks are the same and the opportunities for fraud are the same, so the protection offered to customers should be the same in all those schemes.

We should not have to go through measures industry by industry picking up where scams take place. The key point is that it is not about the product or service that the company claims to be selling—it is about making sure the customer’s money is kept safely until the time comes for that product or service to be provided. We should legislate to prevent company directors from gambling recklessly with money that belongs to their customers. It is possible to address this with a fairly simple amendment to proposed new section 71K of the existing Act, and I hope to have an opportunity to table that in Committee.

There is more that we could do with a bit of imagination. I like the idea of designated activities as well as regulated activity—that is a positive step. There are ways that we could significantly improve the accountability of companies carrying out designated activities and, importantly, improve enforcement against those that go rogue. We could reduce the exemptions that they have, which many of them abuse to avoid having to produce meaningful financial statements. We could look at extending the circumstances in which directors of high-risk companies can be held personally liable for their faults.

I realise that the disjointed way that the UK regulates businesses means that those things fall under the remit of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rather than the Treasury, so it may not even be competent to introduce them for consideration in Committee, but I ask the Minister and his BEIS colleagues to find a place in the Government’s legislative programme as soon as possible for these things to be considered. Too many directors of dodgy companies carry on with their scams because they think they can get away with it, and far too often they can.

As the Minister knows, because he responded to the debate, I spoke this morning in Westminster Hall about the regulation of cryptocurrencies. Incidentally, that is a good example of the fallacy in one of the arguments that the Minister advanced earlier. When we are talking about businesses, growth and stability are not the same thing. Some cryptocurrencies had almost supersonic growth and then evaporated. They had high growth but no stability whatsoever. Growth and stability may both be desirable—although, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) keeps reminding us, there have to be conditions attached to that growth and it has to be sustainable—but to conflate the two is a serious mistake.

The debate on cryptocurrencies is a useful reminder that the way that financial markets operate is changing at an almost bewildering rate. In fact, it is becoming difficult to define exactly what we mean by financial services and financial markets. The Bill makes provision for the Treasury to allow limited testing of new technologies or practices. It is effectively trying to legislate for things that have not been invented yet. I think the approach taken in clauses 13 to 17 is a sensible way forward, but we will be looking very closely at how the use of those powers is scrutinised. For example, Members should be aware, if they are not already, that clause 15 as currently worded will allow the Treasury to amend certain Acts of Parliament on the basis of a pilot test in one of the sandboxes without even waiting for the test to be completed to see what the results are.

Let me move on—briefly, because I am aware of the shortage of time—to some of the other matters covered by the Bill. I am extremely alarmed at the confirmation that the Government want to allow Ministers to call in and potentially overrule decisions by the regulators. Either our regulators are independent or they are not. The regulators must be accountable, but their accountability should be to Parliament. Accountability to a Minister is not the same as accountability to Parliament; it is a very poor substitute.

I share the concerns that have been raised about the lack of emphasis on sustainability, green finance and compliance with our climate change obligations. I also share the concerns that the provisions on access to cash do not go far enough and probably will not lead to action quickly enough. As I mentioned, the anti-fraud measures in the Bill are wholly inadequate.

The Government appear to think that the biggest problem facing financial services regulation is that parts of it were designed and implemented in partnership with our nearest neighbours and trading partners. I think the biggest problem is that, again and again, the regulators fail to act, or act so slowly that it is far too late, and effective enforcement becomes almost impossible. I remind the House that about half of the £46 million lost in the Blackmore Bond scandal was paid by customers to the company after the Financial Conduct Authority had been not only given full details of what the company was up to, but told exactly where and when it could go to witness its illegal activities at first hand. It did nothing for three years.

The Financial Conduct Authority tells us that it does not have sufficient powers to act in the way we would like it to act. It is certainly obvious to all of us that it does not have the resources to properly carry out the responsibilities we ask it to carry out just now, let alone the new ones we intend to give it. At the moment the Bill does not address that.

We will not oppose Second Reading this evening, but that should not be taken as a guarantee that we will allow the Bill to be read the Third time unopposed. If the Minister wants our support in the Bill’s final stages, he has a long way to go to persuade us that it will make things better, rather than worse, for the victims of financial crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.

Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Luxembourg) Order 2022

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 General Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am very pleased to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey, and I am delighted to take part in what is by far the most exciting thing to be happening at Westminster this week.

The policy objectives behind this order are ones that we can all support, and I certainly will not seek to divide the Committee today on it. Nobody should have to pay tax twice on the same income; equally, however, nobody should ever be able to dodge their rightful tax liabilities just by moving their money—or, as in most cases, pretending to move their money—to a different country. For those reasons, I particularly welcome the updates to the previous order that show progress towards closing the loopholes that for far too long have allowed wealthy individuals and organisations to use often completely bogus company structures and other dodges to avoid paying their fair share. I have some queries about the detail of the order, and with your leave, Ms McVey, I will discuss each of those in turn.

I welcome the statement in paragraph 7.12 of the explanatory memorandum that tells us that article 5 of the convention

“includes a rule that prevents companies fragmenting their activities in order to avoid the PE threshold”—

the permanent establishment threshold. However, reading through article 5, it is very difficult to find where it says that. Article 5 does not say that in so many words and it does not say it with anything like such clarity, particularly given the Minister’s desire, which she expressed in her opening remarks, to make the regulations easier to understand. What we have in article 5, paragraphs 4 to 7, is a convoluted set of ifs, buts, maybes and exceptions. About the fifth or sixth time I read through them, I thought I understood what they mean. Will the Minister explain why that part of the order had to be worded in such labyrinthine fashion? It seems like a lawyer’s dream, but I suspect it will be a legislator’s nightmare.

The same paragraph of the explanatory memorandum also refers to the fact that some amendments to the definition of “permanent establishment” recommended by the BEPS project are not adopted in the draft order. Will the Minister briefly outline which amendments those are and why the Government do not think it is necessary and appropriate to incorporate them into the draft order?

Paragraph 2 of article 6 confirms that the order applies to the usufruct of immovable property. According to Hansard, the word “usufruct” has only been used three times in Parliament during my lifetime—that is four times it has appeared now—and yes, I did have to look it up to find out what it meant.

There are important and welcome provisions in articles 11 and 12 designed to close down a very frequently abused loophole whereby a company could set up a shell, purely fictitious holding company in a low-tax jurisdiction and agree to pay itself outlandish levels of interest, rents or royalties that could make all the profits of the entire operation appear where they would be least taxed. Article 28 has a more general anti-avoidance provision. Again, I welcome it as an important principle of fairness that companies should pay tax on their profits in the jurisdiction where those profits are generated, but will the Minister clarify how that is going to work in practice? I could see, for example, how interest rates could be benchmarked so that it becomes quite obvious if a company is paying excessively high interest rates to its parent company, but how practical will it be to do that with trademarks? There will be an argument that every trademark has a different value. How do we assess or benchmark the value of the Google or Amazon trademark when those companies are similar to any other company in the marketplace, but are also in many ways unique?

Will, for example, HMRC and its Luxembourg counterparts be looking for evidence that such payments are determined by a long-term, legally enforceable contract between the two companies, and cannot just be made up year by year after the company that is going to pay the money has finalised its accounts and decided how much profit it can have? It is astonishing how often subsidiaries of Amazon, Google and so on seem to pay 99.9% of their in-country profits in the way of rent or other payments to their parent company.

A perhaps more important concern is how HMRC and the Treasury can be sure that they have access to accurate and up-to-date information about company ownerships and directors, and the relationships between companies in the UK and elsewhere, when the official register of companies in the United Kingdom is such an utter mess. The Minister may or may not have been called to higher things by the time these discussions are needed, but when she or her successor is speaking to colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about when the register will be made fit for purpose, perhaps they could also suggest that companies legislation in the UK should follow tax legislation—follow HMRC’s example—and clamp down on those entirely artificial and bogus company structures that, all too often, are created purely to avoid legal requirements. We have seen examples of how it has been made difficult or impossible for companies to avoid their tax requirements, but why is it possible for them to dodge some of their transparency requirements in the UK? Why is it legal for a company to avoid the requirement to publish full accounts or have them audited just by splitting itself into 20 or 30 mini-me companies so that every single one of them comes down below the reporting threshold, despite the fact that they have identical shareholders and directors?

Moving on to other parts of the order, I note with a passing interest the fact that the UK Government still thought it was necessary to retain the provisions in article 13 giving them the right to tax a Luxembourg company on profits arising from some oil and gas activities in the North sea. That comes as a surprise to those of us who were told in 2014 that the oil and gas had run out. I suspect that between now and October 2023, we are going to be told again that the oil and gas under the North sea is worthless.

Article 21 deals with the taxation of wealth or capital. The memorandum points out that there is currently no tax in the UK based on an individual’s wealth, but can the Minister confirm that if any future Government were minded to introduce a wealth tax of any kind, it would automatically fall within the scope of the order and we would not need an additional order to cover it?

The provisions of article 24 relate to arbitration and dispute resolution. I welcome the fact that the emphasis is now on trying to do things by agreement, and only to go to arbitration as the last resort. Will the Minister clarify how the arbitrator is appointed and, importantly, who pays the cost of arbitration, because it can become an expensive business? How do the Government propose to discourage vexatious or entirely groundless applications for arbitration without unintentionally making it impossible for individuals or organisations who may well have valid grounds for testing the validity of a decision?

Finally, I ask the Minister to confirm, on the record, that article 26, on the exchange of information, is entirely compliant with the general data protection regulation. I fully support in principle tax authorities exchanging information when necessary to catch out people who too often use secrecy to conceal what they are doing and their ill-gotten gains, but if two different jurisdictions are exchanging information, it is important that both agree to comply at all times with the higher of the two standards of data protection applicable. Will the Minister confirm that that will be done with the legislation as it is, and reassure us that should there be any divergence between the UK and Luxembourg through one or the other weakening its current data protection laws, the data rights of UK citizens will not be weakened as a result?

With those comments, I will be happy to support the order going through tonight, but I do have some questions on detail that hopefully the Minister can answer. If she cannot just now, she can possibly write to me at a later date.

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes for his detailed and interesting questions. I hope to be able to respond to at least some of them. The hon. Member asked how the principal purpose test applies in practice. The answer is that HMRC has a long history of dealing with avoidance provisions of this type, and the same principles will be applied here, supported by existing guidance and OECD commentary.

The hon. Member asked about anti-fragmentation and the complicated wording; I assure him that it is standard OECD wording, which has been adopted by all countries. He also asked about any potential new capital articles. I would reassure him that the provision would cover any new UK tax on capital. On how arbitration works, the costs will be paid by the states and details of the operation are set out by a competent authority agreement. On whether article 26 complies with GDPR, the answer is yes, it is fully compliant with GDPR provisions.

The hon. Member pointed out the issues of beneficial ownership. He will know that the UK was the first country to introduce a public register of ultimate beneficial owners of companies—the people with significant control register. Recently, we have also introduced a largely public register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property, and we expect that new register will be useful in tackling tax non-compliance as well as economic crimes.

[Peter Grant]

On the question of the register of beneficial ownership, how effective—if indeed they exist at all—are the penalties for knowingly providing false information, or for knowingly withholding information? I regularly look at companies’ records at Companies House where it is clear from looking at the shareholdings that someone has very substantial control, yet the official register says that no one has significant control. When will the requirement to report that actually be given teeth, so that it becomes mandatory, instead of effectively voluntary as it is now?

[Lucy Frazer]

It is of course important that we have penalties appropriate to the provisions in any legislation. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are looking very carefully at the issue of beneficial ownership. He also asked about a wealth tax; there is no current intention to bring in any wealth tax. For all those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

A big concern for small businesses in my constituency, especially those in construction and engineering contract work, is that they finish the job, the main contractor gets paid, but the people who did the work sometimes wait months to get paid. If the main contractor fails during that time, the money disappears with it. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the possibility of making sure that those moneys are kept in a protective bond, so that if we cannot prevent the main contractor from going bust, we can at least stop it dragging down hundreds of small businesses with it?

[Helen Whately]

I do have conversations with the construction sector and more widely about infrastructure investment in this country. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about the specific suggestion he has to help the construction sector.

Customs (Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2022

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2022 General Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move that,

That the Committee has considered the Customs (Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 615).

The regulations update the UK’s tariff schedule and correct minor errors in previous secondary legislation. Specifically, this statutory instrument amends existing tariff legislation that was laid before the House on 16 December 2020 and through which the UK’s first independent tariff schedule was implemented on 1 January 2021.

I want to highlight two aspects of the instrument. First, it updates a number of commodity codes—the classifications of goods within the tariff schedule—as laid out in a set of tariff reference documents. These are routine technical changes, which are needed to ensure that traders access the correct codes when trading in goods. Secondly, the instrument rectifies a small number of administrative errors in connection with three tariff lines for goods relating to chemical dyes used in pharmaceutical manufacturing, carpets and textile floor coverings. The errors relate to missing tariff duties on those goods in the legislation. For context, that is three out of about 16,000 tariff lines. Although traders were previously charged tariffs on the goods at the rates intended, and as traders expected, it was done inadvertently, without the three rates being set out formally in the tariff reference document.

After that was discovered during a review, systems were changed, so that traders were no longer charged tariffs on the goods, thereby ensuring that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs was acting lawfully in the interim while the error in the legislation was corrected. This instrument inserts the intended rates into the legislation, allowing HMRC to collect these rates properly and lawfully from now on.

As trade did take place on the lines before the legislation was corrected, HMRC must reimburse traders who were charged rates that were not reflected in the legislation. It is in the process of doing so. More broadly, I emphasise that the vast majority of customs duties are being collected as intended.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Can the Minister give us the gross figures for the total amounts overpaid and underpaid before the error was corrected?

[Lucy Frazer]

We are in the process of reimbursing a total of £1,382,000.90 to 601 traders incorrectly charged as a result of these errors.

In conclusion, this instrument updates the tariff schedule and makes limited corrections to address administrative errors. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Like the main Opposition party, the SNP will not oppose the regulations, because we actually think it is a good idea for Governments to admit when they have made a mistake and correct it at the earliest opportunity. The Government seem to be quite selective about which mistakes they admit to and are willing to correct.

The Minister can point to the fact that there were only three very small errors for the number of lines that we are dealing with, but £1.3 million was overcharged. That is an average overcharge of £2,000 for 600 traders. We do not know what size those traders are, but a lot of the traders in my constituency—even some of the quite big ones—barely made a £2,000 profit last year. That amount of money might look quite trivial in the context of the total customs bill for the year, but it could be significant to traders who have been overcharged.

I asked earlier about underpayments, and the Minister did not answer my question. Have there been underpayments as well, and if so, of how much were they and what is happening with them? Will other traders be told that they have to pay more than they had expected, or will that amount be written off at public expense?

The Minister concentrates on the small percentage of errors in the legislation, but this is not the first time that I have spoken in a DL Committee through which the Government are attempting, for the second or third time, to correct errors in Brexit legislation. It is quite clear that the Government catastrophically misunderstood and underestimated the amount of work needed to put Britain back where it was before it left the European Union.

We cannot blame civil servants—they are human beings and make mistakes, especially when under pressure—but if this is what happens now, when the civil service is close to full staffing, how on earth do the Government think they will get by with 90,000 fewer civil servants? Where will those civil service cuts be made? I have not yet seen a Government Department perform anywhere near the standards that they should reach, and for most of them, that is partly because they are understaffed, so I genuinely do not know why the Treasury or any other Department thinks that it can cut staffing by 20%, 30% or 40% without opening the door to errors that are much more catastrophic than the ones before the Committee.

New Wealth Taxes

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his illustrative intervention, but I would paraphrase a former Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee: charity as a substitution for taxation can be a cold, heartless model. We should not be depending on the voluntary generosity of those at the very top to fund our public services. That creates a scenario that is almost servant and master—blessed is the giver and blessed is the receiver.

The UK does not have a wealth tax. Ministers have previously responded to me by saying that in practice we do, through taxes such as capital gains tax, but, while those earning wages are taxed on every penny of their income above permitted allowances, the same does not apply to the accumulation of wealth. For example, capital gains tax does not apply to all wealth but only to increases in the value of particular items of wealth. Structurally, we tax income much more rigorously than we do wealth. Of course, that favours the wealthy, as it is designed to do. I am afraid it is simply not good enough to pretend that even that system is working.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the deliberate decision to increase national insurance contributions rather than other forms of income tax was a deliberate attempt to tax the poor rather than the wealthy for failings in the NHS?

[Richard Burgon]

That is absolutely right. The increase in national insurance contributions was iniquitous, regressive and absolutely outrageous, but from this Conservative Government, it was no surprise.

We currently have the scandal where income derived from wealth is taxed below income derived from work. For example, someone living off share dividend payouts would pay less in tax than someone who earns the same amount by getting up each and every day and going out to work. How on earth can that be justified? Likewise, capital gains tax, paid on profits when selling assets such as a second home, is paid below income tax rates.

There is huge scope for increasing tax revenues by ending the significant tax discounts afforded to income from wealth over income from work. Simply ending the lower rates paid on capital gains and share dividends, and removing the related exemptions on those taxes, would raise around £22 billion per year. That is a lot more than was raised by the national insurance tax hike on working people that we have just discussed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. It is important to put the other side of the argument in this debate, albeit very briefly. It is fascinating to hear Members on the left of the Labour party campaign for even higher taxes when we already have the highest taxes this country has experienced during my lifetime. Like most Conservatives, I am in support of lower taxes, which is why I voted against the increases in national insurance. I agree with those who say that it was the wrong solution.

I want to encourage an entrepreneurial society. I want to have the wealth contributors active in our society. I have just come back from a parliamentary visit to California, where there is an enormous amount of wealth. California had a surplus last year of $100 billion, which was largely on the basis of taxing the very high earners and the wealthiest people in California. However, we heard a cautionary tale. There is a worry that California’s whole network of public services is now highly dependent on the income of such a small group of people and that, with the recession—when those people may lose a lot of their wealth—the income of California will drop dramatically.

I want to mention a couple of examples of wealth taxes that are already in operation. One is in the context of stamp duty. The consequence of arbitrary levels of stamp duty is people being deterred from selling their houses—they choose not to incur the tax and stay in the house they are in. We need supply-side reform there to eliminate the problems caused by high levels of stamp duty. It is very easy to campaign and say, “That is a really expensive house. When you buy that house, you should pay a substantial amount of tax on it,” but the consequences are—the unintended consequences, as so often arise with such measures—that we have actually succeeded in suppressing the housing market and individual choice.

The other issue, which is a big one in my constituency, is the proxy wealth tax, otherwise known as council tax, which is higher for those people who have more valuable properties. There will be some people who argue that it should be even higher for those with even more valuable properties. In my constituency, I have a large number of people who are, for want of a better expression, in council tax poverty. They face council tax imposed by Dorset Council in the order of, say, £4,000 a year, which is a heck of a lot more than 10% of their annual disposable income. It is a real pressure point at the moment.

Council tax is not a fair tax, because the taxes are not related to the use that individuals make of public services—it is a proxy wealth tax—but it sounded like a good idea at the time, as a reaction to the problems over the community charge. It is the law of unintended consequences that in Dorset, large numbers of my constituents are paying disproportionate amounts of money in council tax because of the system that is in place. Because their house happens to be worth more than a house somewhere in the north of England, they are deemed to be in a position to be able to pay more tax to the local exchequer than somebody in the north of England who might be very much better off.

[Peter Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I know that Scotland was where we pioneered the community charge, so I would be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Peter Grant]

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s assumption that the council tax is a wealth tax. A lot of my constituents who do not own anything—who do not own the house they live in—still have to pay council tax. It is not a tax on ownership; it is a tax on occupancy.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It is a tax related to the wealth of the property in which someone lives. If there is only one person living in that property, there is a 25% discount, but there is no discount otherwise. It is solely related to the capital value of the property, and that is why, in a sense, it is a wealth tax. I know that this is an inconvenient argument for those who are campaigning for a wealth tax, but let us be under no illusions: the council tax system is essentially an embryonic wealth tax, although the levels are much lower than the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) referred to in his introduction to the debate.

I do not know anybody who would be subject to the tax that the hon. Member for Leeds East suggests. He mentioned people who say they would love to be able to pay more tax. As I said in my intervention, there is nothing to stop all those socialist millionaires who have a bit of a conscience and who are arguing that everybody else other than themselves should pay more tax making their own contribution. There is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman setting up a trust fund into which they could pay, so they could then contribute more than they are able to contribute at the moment. Why not do that?

If people want to pay more towards the costs of the state and are in a position so to do, there is a voluntary system out there. I am sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), will draw our attention to the fact that the number of voluntary contributions made to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is rather modest compared with what it could be on the basis of what those supposed billionaires want to do.

Let us keep the wealth creators in our country. Let us praise the work they do, the jobs they create and the contribution they make to our overall wealth as a nation. Let us not deter them and drive them away elsewhere. I am very much against a wealth tax and I hope the Minister will make it clear that it is in no way on the Government’s agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to begin the summing-up for this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate and for the well-informed and passionate way in which he introduced it. That goes for all the speakers. I had issues with some comments from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who has not been able to stay to the end, but he put his points across with a great deal of vigour, as always.

I think what we are looking at here is a fundamental difference of opinion on who the wealth is for. Who is the world’s wealth for? Who should have first claim on the natural resources of any country? Historically, Britain has taken the view that it does not belong to the people in that country. That is what the colonies were about. That is what the slave trade was about. There is an assumption that is still deep in the British psyche that somehow Britain is better than everybody else, that, “We’ve got a right to impose on them; they don’t have a right to impose on us.” We see the same attitude in arguments about who has the right to enjoy the benefits of the resources of this or any other country.

I see that locally, in my own constituency of Glenrothes in the centre of Fife and throughout west and southern Fife, with the legacy of the coal mining industry. For the few, it generated massive fortunes. For the many, all it generated was memorials and early graves. Many of my constituents are still, to this day, permanently disabled by diseases they caught while working down the coal mines.

Then there is the legacy of North sea oil and gas—I say the legacy, although that is not fully known yet, because there is still plenty there to be used should we decide to do so. Norway discovered gas at about the same time as we did. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is today worth $1.2 trillion dollars. Norway does not have a national debt, it has a national fortune that it almost literally struggles to find places to invest, equivalent to £184,000 for every man, woman and child in Norway. Scotland’s equivalent sovereign wealth fund from our North sea oil riches is nil, as it is for other parts of the United Kingdom. The entire fortune was frittered away almost entirely on tax breaks for people who already had more money than they knew what to do with.

As has been commented on, the United Kingdom has more billionaires today than ever before and, at the same time, it has more people than ever before genuinely wondering if they will go hungry this weekend. That cannot be right. In five years, the wealthiest 20% of people saw their income increase by 4.7%. The poorest 20% of people saw their income go down by 1.6%. Not only is the wealth and income gap obscenely large, it is getting bigger all the time.

Even during the pandemic when millions of low-paid workers in the public and private sector were going well beyond what they could reasonably be asked to do to keep the economy going, keep us safe and keep public services going, the top earning 1% of employees saw their income increase by 7%. For the bottom earning 10%, it was just over 2%. Seven per cent. of a salary of half a million pounds a year is a heck of a lot more than 2% of £10 per hour.

Oxfam has reported that the fortunes of individual food and energy billionaires has increased by $453 billion in the last two years. One reason why fuel prices are escalating just now is not the requirements of the market, but the naked greed of a small number of individuals and corporations who have decided to take advantage of international crises to increase their own fortunes.

At the same time, this Government choose to employ eight times as many people to chase benefit cheats than they employ to chase tax cheats. Why is that? Because this Government still cling to the philosophy that there is something intrinsically wrong with having to claim benefit and there is something intrinsically wrong with having to pay tax, so we should chase down people who might be fiddling their benefit claim, but, if people are fiddling their tax, unless it is really blatant or unless it becomes impossible to ignore politically, we will not be too worried. We have just over 500 people to deal with large-scale tax fraud against HMRC. We will never get anywhere near full recovery of the money, and the reason can only be that they do not want to.

The rising levels of inequality are not inevitable; it does not have to be like this. They are not an accident, and they are not the natural order of things. It is an artificial situation that has been deliberately created over time by Governments here and elsewhere. Keeping the inequalities and allowing them to get bigger and bigger by the day is a deliberate political choice by the Government of the day. I am not suggesting for a minute—nor, I suspect, is the hon. Member for Leeds East—that a wealth tax on its own will solve all that, because it cannot. No individual measure can solve inequality to the extent that we have it in these four nations, but surely it is time to send out a signal that the purpose of taxation is not to give people who have too much money even more. It is to provide for those who cannot afford to provide for themselves. There is a significant necessity and urgency about that just now.

United Kingdom Government debt, as it stands, is unsustainable and that cannot be allowed to continue. There are three ways to deal with it: we can raise taxes; we can cut public spending, although I cannot think of a single part of the public sector that needs to be cut, and I can think of a lot that desperately need more resources; or we can take steps that will help to grow the economy, which is a longer-term ambition that will not happen overnight. There is an imperative to increase the amount of tax that is raised somehow, but the Government have chosen to do that by punishing people for being low paid. They are punishing people for going out to work, and punishing businesses for taking on additional employees by increasing national insurance. The Government had a choice to increase other taxes, which might have upset the Chancellor’s friends but would have left the vast majority of people in these four nations better off as a result.

There is not a single thing called a wealth tax that is necessarily good or bad. There is a lot of detail that needs to be considered, and it is quite right that nobody has put forward a specific plan as to exactly what should constitute wealth, where the tax should start and what level it should be put at. Those are all things that need to be looked at in detail and, once the wealth taxes are introduced, that will inevitably become part of the Budget considerations for future Chancellors. However, given the level of inequalities that we have just now, and given that there are people resident in these four nations who sometimes try to pretend not to be resident and who literally have more money that they could possibly spend during their lifetime, no matter how hard they try, surely it is only reasonable to ask them to give up a tiny fraction of their massive wealth to protect people who have been through the mill over the last two and a half years, many of whom have made massive sacrifices. Surely it is time to start giving these workers the salaries that they deserve and to start to reinstate the public services that so many citizens urgently require.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

I would love to, but I am coming to the end of my time.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am happy to give way.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for intervening on my behalf. That is the second or third time that the Minister and her colleagues have quoted figures on how much better off certain people will be because of changes to the tax and benefits system. They have not yet been able to answer the question of how much of that additional income has already disappeared because of the increasing cost of the basic essentials of life.

[Lucy Frazer]

I anticipated that point, which is an important one, and we will of course bring forward more statistics for this year in due course.

North Sea Oil and Gas Producers: Investment Allowances

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I welcome the acknowledgement from the Government yet again of the vast wealth that currently lies under the waters of Scotland. Oddly enough, in 2014, it had run out, but there still seems to be an awful lot of wealth to be got from the North sea just now.

Will the Minister explain why the windfall tax was only ever applied to the energy producers? Why was it not applied to other companies that, just through good luck, became mega-rich almost overnight? I am talking about the big multinational tech firms, online retailers and the importers of shoddy, useless personal protective equipment that cost the public billions of pounds. Why are they not facing a windfall tax, at the very least?

If an investment allowance is appropriate, why is it not being restricted to investments in technologies that will reduce the carbon footprint of the North sea? Why is it not being restricted to helping to transform Scotland’s and the UK’s oil production away from carbon-based fuels to other methods? Why is it being used effectively to give an incentive to continue the exploitation of our carbon resources?

The Minister said that the Government expect to get £5 billion from the windfall tax. What would the amount have been if they had not applied the investment allowance? How much are the oil companies saving as a result? The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have expressed concerns about the lack of reliable detail to show that tax reliefs have had the result intended. How will the Government know that they have? What steps will they take to prevent fraudulent claims?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a large number of points. The reason we are taxing this sector is that these are extraordinary profits that have been made not as a result of anything that the companies have done, but because of the price of gas. The Chancellor also said that he would look at electricity generation, because that is riding on the back of gas prices.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about decarbonisation and the oil and gas sector, I point out that capital allowances will be available for capital expenditure from the oil and gas sector that makes the production of oil and gas less carbon-intensive, which could include electrification.