Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. A discussion about the REACH regulation was on the agenda when the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union met the chemical industry and, of course, it will continue to form part of our discussions.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

8. Whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing additional rules to ring-fence the operations of US banks in the UK.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)]

US banks operating in the UK are regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. The UK’s ring-fencing regime applies to all banks operating in the UK that are above the threshold of holding £25 billion of core deposits.

[Philip Boswell]

Does the Minister agree that the likely rolling back of the Dodd–Frank Act in the US, combined with the watering down of banking conduct reform, could result in deregulated American banks with high-risk lending patterns operating in the UK?

[Simon Kirby]

The UK and US financial sectors have significantly increased their resilience since the crisis, and the PRA has the powers it needs to regulate overseas firms operating in the UK to ensure the stability of the UK financial system.

Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) for securing this important debate. As others have rightly pointed out, those most negatively affected by the absence of a financial dispute resolution platform are largely small and medium-sized enterprises. The importance of such businesses to our general economic wellbeing cannot be emphasised enough. Some 67% of all UK workers are employed by small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not protected by the Financial Ombudsman Service. That figure amounts to 17 million employees, or over half the UK’s workforce. As such, it is important to recognise when discussing such businesses, which are at risk of going under owing to the burden of financial disputes, that it is not only the business owners who are at risk: the employees and their families will also feel the knock-on effects.

These vital small businesses face numerous structural challenges not faced by larger businesses. They have far fewer resources, meaning not only finances, but time, labour and information. In addition, they often have far less experience to draw upon than larger, more established businesses. The structural challenges mean that there is a substantial imbalance when SMEs get into financial disputes with large businesses or large banking institutions. The larger party involved in such disputes is inherently at an advantage, both in the context of a dispute resolution outwith the legal system and within the court system.

For small businesses that come into dispute with a financial institution, the first step is to submit a complaint to the institution’s internal complaint procedure, but many SMEs are fearful of even taking that first step. Unfortunately, it is unsurprising that SMEs feel sufficiently intimidated by financial institutions not to submit a complaint when they feel unfairly treated. According to statistics from the Bank of England, total lending from UK banks to other banks has more than quadrupled since 1990. However, lending from UK banks to businesses involved in production has remained stagnant. In addition, the Basel III international capital adequacy regulations, introduced in the wake of the financial crisis, have made lending to SMEs more expensive, further incentivising banks to lend to other banks, rather than to SMEs.

Just last week, I was approached by a small business from my constituency that has developed an innovative new technology that recycles waste and creates clean energy while minimising emissions. It reached out to me because it has struggled to obtain sufficient funding to move forward with the project, despite having built a test facility. That is just one example, but it demonstrates the degree to which small businesses struggle to obtain financing and credit. It is no wonder that many small businesses do not want to submit complaints to a financial institution. With so little credit available to SMEs, it is more than understandable that they want to protect their access to a limited available line of credit, even if it means being treated unfairly.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, highlighting that the UK’s highly centralised banking model is broken. In addition to considering dispute resolution and firmer protections for businesses, we should look at an alternative banking structure based on community banks, under which banks are ingrained in their communities and know their local businesses.

[Philip Boswell]

I wholeheartedly agree with that excellent point.

As mentioned in today’s motion, the Financial Conduct Authority has set up several ad hoc schemes to address systemic misconduct by financial institutions. The schemes have been widely criticised, and, as others have mentioned, even Andrew Bailey, the new chief executive of the FCA, has said that they have left those affected by bank misconduct feeling unfairly treated. The recent review of the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products demonstrates the shortfall of the ad-hoc compensation schemes and their inability to reach fair outcomes for customers.

Last year, just before Christmas, I was approached by a constituent who had been mis-sold an interest rate hedging product. In 2001, my constituent and several co-investors used their retirement savings to create a small business that would purchase commercial property in Glasgow. However, they had insufficient capital to purchase their first property outright and therefore sought a loan from a bank. Despite the banks involved with the mis-selling claiming that customers were under no pressure to purchase the product, my constituent informed me that he could not find a single bank that would lend the money without including the interest rate hedging product. My constituent was told that this was to protect the customer in the event of interest rates continuing to rise. Having no other choice, my constituent’s business took out a 25-year loan that included the aforementioned product.

Many in the Chamber will be aware that interest rates fell during the financial crisis. The inclusion of the product in the loan resulted in my constituent’s business—set up on pension scheme earnings—owing £30,000 per quarter in interest alone during the biggest financial crisis in modern history. When it became apparent to my constituent that his business had been mis-sold the product, he began the complaints process in the hope of receiving some sort of compensation. However, the bank with which he took out the loan continually refused to provide him with the relevant paperwork for the loan, making it difficult for my constituent to continue the process.

[George Kerevan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a fundamental problem with the current ad hoc redress system is that it does not allow the complainant access to the information they need? A tribunal system would put the complainant and the bank on an equal footing and allow that information to be made available.

[Philip Boswell]

I entirely agree. Such a practice is entirely undesirable and not befitting of any bank, particularly one in public ownership, as has been mentioned before.

The delay and avoidance tactics used by the bank, combined with the FCA’s own recommendation that claimants should not take legal action, meant that my constituent's case surpassed the six-year time limit on taking court action. His business did not receive any compensation from the bank as a result of the ad hoc scheme overseen by the FCA. Unfortunately, my constituent’s experience is far from rare, as many Members have shown. The compensation scheme for the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products was bank-centric and lacked sufficient FCA oversight. The review was set up in conjunction with the banks and allowed them to make redress offers that did not reflect an objectively fair outcome. The case of my constituent and the experiences of others who have been treated unfairly by banks clearly demonstrate the wide scope of financial disputes, particularly those between small businesses and financial institutions.

After hearing about the experiences of constituents from across the UK shared by Members today, it is apparent the ad hoc schemes set up by the FCA have lacked sufficient clarity and that the creation of a commercial financial dispute resolution platform is necessary. I am happy to support the motion presented by my hon. Friend, and I welcome the support that has been expressed in the House today.

Outsourcing and Tax Credits

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point and worthwhile contribution. He is right that there have been mistakes and lessons to be learned over a large number of years in a number of different Departments. What is important is that we get the balance right, pay the money that people—often the most vulnerable in society—are owed, while at the same time protecting the taxpayer from unnecessary overpayment, error and fraud.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

While Concentrix certainly has questions to answer, the model for indiscriminately targeting low-income families was devised by the Conservative Government and designed to place the burden of the failing austerity agenda firmly on the shoulders of the most disadvantaged in our society. As tax credits are to be overtaken by universal credit, there have already been reports on the delay of the roll-out of UC as well as on continued problems with the system. With private companies such as Atos, Maximus and Concentrix under the spotlight for their poor handling of contracts intended to support social security claimants, does the Minister agree that we must ensure that all future contracts are kept under close scrutiny by his Department, that they are fit for purpose and that they protect vulnerable people?

[Simon Kirby]

I agree that everything that the Government do should be kept under close scrutiny. It is worth saying again that HMRC has reduced error and fraud in the tax credit system, so that it remains on target and is at a near record low since tax credits were introduced in 2003—some 13 years ago. We are always well advised constantly to check and ensure that the service we deliver is appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he has asked me a very important question. He knows that the operation of monetary policy in the UK is independent of Government. Monetary policy, including measures such as quantitative easing, has been highly effective in supporting the economy. Because of the fiscal implications of an indemnity for the Bank, packages have to be formally agreed by the Chancellor. Although I cannot prejudge any hypothetical request, no request for quantitative easing has ever been refused, and I see no reason why circumstances would be different in future.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

The latest reports on the dash for cash in RBS’s Global Restructuring Group show even more misconduct by this bank. Given that we own a majority of RBS shares, does the Chancellor not believe that the UK Government have an obligation to the people of this country to conduct a robust investigation into the allegations of misconduct?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)]

The Financial Conduct Authority is looking at this important issue, and we will wait on its view.

Finance Bill

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

Treasury Ministers and the Chancellor take points made by my right hon. Friend and his Committee members very seriously. As I said earlier and as has been confirmed in an exchange of letters between my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor, we will consider the issue at future fiscal events closer to the date of the autumn statement. I may be able to write to my right hon. Friend with further information, but that is what I am able to say at the moment.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. She is being most generous.

Yesterday, in an intervention on the speech of one of the Minister’s colleagues, I asked when we were likely to expect the very important autumn statement. The response was “some time in November, maybe December.” Can the Minister confirm that that is indeed the case?

[Jane Ellison]

As I have said, the date will be confirmed in due course, but I think it reasonable to assume that the window of opportunity to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is broadly correct.

I shall speak briefly—as, again, there is no Liberal Democrat presence in the Chamber—about amendment 179, which deals with the apprenticeship levy. This would exclude qualifying bonus payments to employees of employee-owned businesses from being considered as part of the employer’s pay bill when calculating the levy. To ensure the levy is as simple and fair as possible, the Government have decided to use the existing definition of earnings—those used for employers national insurance contributions. This avoids unnecessary complication. This point about avoiding complication was made repeatedly to us during the consultation. We feel the amendment would add complication and therefore we urge the House to reject it.

Lastly, Labour amendment 141 on employee share schemes proposes a tax exemption for residual cash amounts remaining in share incentive plans when they are donated to charity. While we appreciate the proposal is made with the best of intentions, we are concerned the change would, again, add complexity and the amendment lacks details. We would need further development and evidence of this idea before giving it further consideration.

I will end there, but I may look to respond briefly at the end if there are any further points I can add that would assist the House. I look forward to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Lady tempts me into a wider debate. If the Minister were to respond on this, she would certainly point to the measures on childcare. When one looks at supporting couples with young children, there are other things the Government have been very much involved in to improve the offer. There is work to do on access and affordability, not least, in my constituency, in relation to poor households accessing childcare.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Lady talked about choice. There is also an issue about choice in that the Government are rightly encouraging as many people as possible to work and to exercise that choice, but it is sometimes an invidious choice for those who would want to stay at home, and the fiscal incentive to do that is not currently there.

There is a huge impact generally across the tax system on single-earner couples, which is not getting sufficient attention, and this proposal for the transferable allowance addresses that. There are lots of other measures across the tax and benefits system that seek to focus support on children, but we must particularly support the benefits of this allowance, which is around couples, marriage and the commitment to marriage and civil partnership.

In conclusion, following the cause of new clause 3 can be a win-win situation for the Government. It not only, obviously, recognises what we do already on marriage in the tax system, but it allows us to get the maximum effect from the Government’s original commitment, which I believe was welcome, but which was somewhat partial in terms of its original intentions. Recognising the financial challenges, I think new clause 3 would ensure that we can seek to remove some of the disincentives to marriage for those who wish to marry; it would help us to support social resilience and help with transferability; and it is also fiscally conservative. In short, new clause 3 is about getting more bang for our buck in supporting marriage and social justice.

[Philip Boswell]

There are several new clauses on which I intend to speak—most of them briefly—and the first is new clause 18.

New clause 18 calls for a review of the impact of section 24 of the Finance Act 2015. I and my SNP colleagues have concerns that the changes made in section 24 may have adverse consequences on the availability of affordable housing in Scotland and beyond. That legislation seems to be yet another London-centric policy that fails to take account of the diversity of the housing market throughout the UK.

Unlike other parts of the UK, where large rental agencies dominate, Scotland has a disproportionate number of landlords who own a small number of properties. That is hugely beneficial to tenants—particularly those on low incomes—as those small-scale landlords are often more willing to rent properties at an affordable price and to those relying on social security as a safety net. Owing to the changes introduced in section 24, we are concerned that those small-scale landlords may be forced drastically to increase rental costs, causing houses to be less affordable, or to sell their properties, potentially resulting in their being purchased by less sympathetic landlords or agencies. Given the UK-wide housing crisis that we are suffering and the rising cost of rented accommodation, it is incredibly important to ensure that landlords who rent at affordable prices and to those who depend on social security as a safety net are not pushed out of the market. New clause 18 therefore calls for a review of the impact of these changes on the availability of affordable housing so that those on lower incomes are not adversely affected.

New clause 6 calls for a review of the VAT treatment of the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish fire and rescue service. I thank the Minister for her comments and consideration in her introductory remarks. Many in this Chamber may be familiar with the matter of VAT in relation to the Scottish police and fire rescue services, which my colleagues have raised in this House on a number of occasions. This remains an incredibly important matter that this Government have failed properly to address. Since the incorporation of police and fire authorities in 2013, the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish fire and rescue services have been charged VAT by the UK Treasury. This UK Government have refused to grant an exemption to these vital services in Scotland, despite the fact that since the time of incorporation the HMRC has handed out exemptions to the new transport agency Highways England, and Olympic legacy organisation the London Legacy Development Corporation.

This Tory-backed charge on essential Scottish public services is costing emergency services tens of millions every year that could and should be spent on frontline services. Only in June, it was reported that Scotland’s police force has paid £76.5 million in VAT since it was formed three years ago and remains unable to claim this money. It is worth noting that only the Scottish police and fire services have been expected to pay VAT to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and not English, Welsh or Northern Irish services. This is a disgrace. It seems absurd and unfair for this Tory UK Government to continually expect the Scottish Government to rectify the matter and cover the difference, especially given the consistent cuts to the pocket money they grant Scotland to run devolved matters. New clause 6 therefore seeks a review of the impacts of the VAT treatment on the Scottish police and Scottish fire and rescue services, including analysis of the impact of the financial position of these services arising from their VAT treatment.

I turn briefly to new clause 15, which seeks to prevent VAT from being increased on the installation of energy-saving materials. I agree with the intent of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to prevent these VAT increases, if not his methods. This Tory Government have consistently instituted regressive policies in relation to clean energy and energy-efficiency measures, from cuts to the solar subsidies—

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this would be a relatively cheap way of incentivising householders and energy-saving products in addressing some of the damage that the Government and the previous coalition Government did by, in effect, dismantling the green energy policy they claimed to support at the outset?

[Philip Boswell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree wholeheartedly with his comments.

From cuts to solar subsidies, to the scrapping of onshore wind, to the scrapping of the green deal for energy for energy-efficient homes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to the selling of the UK Green Investment Bank—there are numerous other examples—this austerity-obsessed Government are taking the UK backwards with regard to renewable energy. I fear that with Brexit looming on the horizon this trajectory is set to continue. Given this environment of cuts, it seems logical for the installation of energy-saving materials to be exempt from a hike in VAT, as a bare minimum.

I will now speak to new clause 8 on dividend income. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) tabled an amendment regarding the proposed changes to the treatment of dividend income by HMRC. My colleagues and I feel that this issue has not yet been sufficiently addressed by the Government. We did not press the new clause to a vote at that time so that we could address the matter at a later date, and we do so now. I do not wish to rehash previous points made, but this is a matter of great importance and, as such, we have tabled the new clause. Numerous stakeholder groups raised concerns with the Committee regarding the regressive impact of the changes to dividend income proposed in this Bill, particularly the effect on small and microbusinesses, which employ between one and nine people. Those raising concerns have highlighted that the changes will have a disproportionate effect on microbusinesses run by owner-operators on modest incomes, given that there are already numerous disincentives to running microbusinesses—as opposed to traditional salaried employment—including, but not limited to, a lower level of job security and a lack of employer pension contributions.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Finance Bill was devised prior to the vote to leave the European Union. The measure under discussion will have a disproportionate effect on microbusinesses, so does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should accept our new clause and review the measure in the light of Brexit?

[Philip Boswell]

I must admit that I have sympathy with all who have reservations about any position taken in this Bill, given that, as my hon. Friend has said, it seeks to implement measures devised prior to the EU vote and therefore fails to provide for an economy that faces the harsh reality of Brexit. I am sure that we all look forward to the autumn or winter statement—whenever it will be—and the redress it will contain, imaginary or otherwise. We will then see, I presume, whether the new Chancellor is as good with imaginary numbers as the previous one was not.

The Federation of Small Businesses has raised serious concerns. It has highlighted that the changes are particularly acute for members of organisations who are on modest incomes. It has further submitted extensive evidence regarding member feedback on the proposed changes. A number of responses have highlighted concerns from the owners of small and microbusinesses that the changes may mean that they will not be able to continue to employ their small workforces.

In addition, evidence was submitted to the Committee by Jason Kitcat of Crunch Accounting, who has produced excellent work on the matter. I acknowledge that Mr Kitcat has been referenced several times in discussions about the proposed changes, but his analysis is significant and, as such, ought to be raised again. Crunch Accounting has highlighted how the changes as proposed hit lower-earning microbusinesses the hardest. The Government have stated that the changes in dividend income will be offset by planned future changes both to the way in which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs treats corporations and to personal allowances. However, Crunch has highlighted how those anticipated changes will not fully offset the impact of changes to HMRC’s treatment of dividend income for microbusinesses, as proposed by the Bill. In addition, Crunch has highlighted how measures cited by Ministers, such as changes to employment allowances and the annual investment allowance, are rarely available to microbusinesses, as they have little capital investment requirements.

I stress that the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises to the Scottish and UK economy cannot be overstated. There are few things on which I agree with the Prime Minister, but I do agree with her statement last month that

“small and medium sized businesses are the backbone of our country.”

I further welcome her indication in the same speech that she intends to listen to smaller firms. However, I am concerned that, despite that profession from the Prime Minister, the regressive changes to dividend income will not only disincentivise new SMEs from forming, but have the potential to cause existing microbusinesses to fail.

It is essential to note the number of SMEs that are categorised as microbusinesses. The UK is home to 5.2 million microbusinesses, which employ 8.4 million people. In Scotland, microbusinesses play an essential role in the economy. According to recent Scottish Government statistics, 99% of businesses in Scotland are categorised as SMEs, the vast majority of which are microbusinesses. Overall, microbusinesses comprise 81.5% of the businesses in Scotland. The figures are similar for the UK as a whole. According to House of Commons Library research in late 2015, 99% of businesses UK-wide are categorised as SMEs, 95% of which are microbusinesses.

Microbusinesses are essential and central to the functioning of both local and national economies. Given that microbusinesses make up the vast majority of businesses in Scotland and UK-wide, I find it absolutely staggering that HMRC does not make an assessment of microbusinesses as a separate group. Given the prevalence of microbusinesses throughout the economy, it does not seem on this matter as though the Government have listened to the concerns of smaller firms, despite last month’s proclamations from the Prime Minister.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) introduced the original SNP amendment regarding the proposed changes to the way in which HMRC treats dividend income, the response he received to his concerns about microbusinesses was that

“the Government have considered the general economic impact of the changes…the measure is not expected to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.”––[Official Report, Finance Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2016; c. 18.]

This statement taken alone is staggering, given that, as I have stated, 94% of businesses in the UK are categorised as microbusinesses. I fail to see how introducing a change that principally impacts microbusinesses would not be expected to have any significant macroeconomic impact.

The Minister stated in her introductory remarks that we do not yet know the impact of such legislation. I would like to highlight oral evidence given to a Committee of the other place on 8 February 2016 by Cerys MacDonald, the deputy director of personal tax at HMRC. When asked by the Chairman about the impact of these changes on microbusinesses, Ms MacDonald stated:

“I can assure the Committee that we recognise that the dividend tax changes will mean that a lot of people in owner-managed businesses are now paying a higher level of tax than previously, despite the benefit that they will see in the reduction of the corporate tax rate.”

Those two statements seem to me to be at variance with each other. Do the Government believe, as indicated by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the proposed changes to dividend income will not significantly impact on microbusinesses? Or do they believe, as indicated by Ms MacDonald of HMRC, that the changes will impact on owner-managed businesses, despite the planned future change to the corporate rate?

Given the uncertainty surrounding the inconsistent responses from Government, coupled with substantial evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses, Crunch Accounting and others, it seems as though the Government have not fully and comprehensively considered the impact of the proposed changes on small and microbusinesses—the backbone of our economy, as I am sure we all agree.

New clause 8 would require the Government to conduct a review of the impact of the changes on microbusinesses, including the impact on the failure rate of microbusinesses and the options for minimising the impact of the changes on directors who are on low incomes. I therefore advise hon. Members that we will press new clause 8 to a Division.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I rise to support new clauses 2 and 3, the social justice arguments for which, in support of some of the most vulnerable individuals and families in our society, have been so eloquently and comprehensively set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that, although I had prepared speeches on both new clauses, there is no need for me to take up the House’s time to echo what he has already said. I therefore simply put on record my full support for what he said, and I ask to be identified with his remarks.

Finance Bill

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I rise to speak to new clause 5, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, but I wish briefly to mention amendment 162, which has been proposed by the Labour party. I look forward to hearing from its Front-Bench Members. If they intend to push the amendment to a vote, we will join them in the Lobby.

New clause 5 is about the corporation tax treatment of the oil and gas industry. The House will not be surprised to hear me speaking on this subject as I have done so a number of times. What we want is a comprehensive review of the corporation tax rates and investment tax allowances applicable to companies producing oil and gas in the UK, or on the UK continental shelf. This is a timeous ask from us for a number of reasons. For a start, this Bill implements measures that were put in place and discussed first in February and March, before the EU vote, and there have not been any substantive changes by the Government to the Bill as a result of the Brexit vote.

Substantive changes to the Bill are needed because we find ourselves in a completely different situation as a result of the fall-out from Brexit. It is unfortunate that changes have not been made and that there have not been more announcements from the Government about how they intend to manage the financial situation going forward. We want to know about the impact on Aberdeen, which I represent, and on the UK’s tax take and the Treasury. It is important that we seriously consider making changes to the Bill.

We have repeatedly asked for changes to the tax rates and for a comprehensive strategic review. We appreciate that the Government made changes earlier this year, but we do not think they go far enough. Alex Kemp, a renowned petroleum economist, and his long-term research partner, Linda Stephen, are both at Aberdeen University, where they have been working on sophisticated modelling tools. If the Minister has not read the article that appears in Energy Voice today, it is worth reading, together with the report that accompanies it. The work that they have done suggests that corporation tax of 30% is too high, and it is far above the non-North sea rate. They said:

“From the analysis of the economics of new field investments and exploration in current circumstances in the UKCS it is clear that, at $50 and $60 prices, there are many ‘marginal project investment situations’.”

That is key. It is what we have been arguing, and now it is backed up by renowned experts.

The position in which the industry finds itself bears repeating. Estimates vary, but we have lost around 125,000 jobs—from 425,000 we are down to about 300,000. That implies a huge reduction in the tax take for the Treasury and it is a massive hit for the local area, particularly Aberdeen and across Scotland and other oil and gas-producing areas. Because of the reduction in the oil price, we have seen changes in the behaviour of companies. As well as making people redundant, they have changed shift patterns and terms and conditions. They have also managed to reduce production costs, which is a good thing.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

Brexit casts further uncertainty over the oil and gas industry, which under this Conservative Government has seen the legislative goalposts moved almost continuously, thereby hindering vital investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that given that the Bill implements measures devised prior to the EU vote and, as such, fails to provide for an economy that is facing the harsh reality of Brexit, more must be done to mitigate investor uncertainty in the oil and gas sector?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Indeed. Brexit compounds the issues that we have seen in the oil and gas industry, particularly in the North sea, and affects investment. This year we are expecting less than £1 billion-worth of new capital projects to be agreed. In each of the past five years we have seen an average spend of £8 billion. There has been a massive drop-off. Much of that is linked to the global oil price, but the Government have not done enough to increase investor confidence, especially in the light of Brexit. New projects are not being sanctioned because of companies’ negative cash flow. Jobs are consequently being lost all the way along the supply chain. We are losing contracts, expertise and people working in the industry in and around Aberdeen, Scotland and the UK.

Exploration and development activity is at an all-time low. Oil and Gas UK produced a report in February this year which predicted that if the current trajectory of low investment and new projects not being approved continues, we will see a fall in production in 2020. We are not ready for that. Our strategy has been to maximise income and recovery, and the Oil and Gas Authority’s main aim is to ensure that we get as much out of the North sea as we can. Because of the lack of investor confidence and the inability to sanction new capital projects, that is becoming increasingly difficult.

I have asked various Ministers about the Government’s intentions. We are not seeing investor confidence. We are seeing a major drop-off in investment, as the figures show. I welcome some of the changes that the Oil and Gas Authority has made. It is working on making it easier to transfer assets that have reached the end of their life. We do not want decommissioning to take place now. I understand entirely that if there is sufficient UK spend, there will be a financial benefit to UK companies from decommissioning, as long as we can ensure that the supply chain for decommissioning is based in the UK.

However, some of the assets that have been in the North sea for 30 years are at the end of their useful life and need to be decommissioned. I welcome the OGA’s push to ensure that as much of that spend as possible is in the UK, and I welcome its efforts to ensure that assets can be transferred so that as much oil as possible can be recovered from each of those fields. The OGA has been focusing on enhanced oil recovery, but the Government have not done enough in that respect. Changes are necessary to the tax regime to encourage companies to undertake enhanced oil recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) will be glad to know that she can also come to my constituency and hear a few Aberdonian accents from time to time, without having to go out to the middle of Texas.

I have a lot of sympathy for the situation that the hon. Lady finds herself in. Inevitably, there has been a lot of tinkering with tax rates in oil and gas. In my 15 years in the House, it has seemed that barely a year goes by without many paragraphs of any Finance Bill being part and parcel of this. Clearly, we are not yet to know whether the gas price and oil price will be stabilised at $50 to $60 a barrel or will go in different directions. I am sure that the Treasury has this whole issue under constant review.

[Philip Boswell]

Many believe that the oil and gas industry has been adversely affected by Brexit. Earlier this year, I asked this Chancellor, in his first Treasury questions, when the people of the UK could get an insight into the scale of capital flight following Brexit. He replied:

“a series of data publications during the late summer and autumn will inform a proper response at the autumn statement.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 664.]

Many other hon. Members in this House asked similar questions to which the Chancellor gave a similar answer—that all will be revealed in the autumn statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor, having now had a few months to think about it, should at least furnish us with the date of the coming autumn statement?

[Mark Field]

I suspect we all know that the autumn statement will be coming up at some point in late November or early December, if precedent is anything to go by. As someone who was also very firmly in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have to make Brexit work, and this will take time. I understand the frustration of many who would like to see the Government put forward a template on these matters today, but I think they are right to recognise that we have to play our cards close to our chest. This is a diplomatic process that will take some considerable time. One of the great strengths that we have had as the United Kingdom in diplomatic affairs, going back many centuries, is the sense of being able to make something work for the interests of this country. We have to recognise what is going on in world affairs, whether in the oil and gas price or in prices in other areas. This is an incredibly volatile time, politically and economically, and the notion that we can have any direct template in place now, or indeed at any point during the course of this year, is wholly misleading.

[Philip Boswell]

The hon. Gentleman is being most gracious and I thank him for his time. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has mentioned real concerns expressed by the Japanese Government re investment in the UK. This concern was echoed when President Obama confirmed, post-EU referendum, that the EU is a much greater priority for US trade relations than the UK outside of the EU. Given US investment in oil and gas in the UK, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Government have had more than enough time to give the British people a definitive definition of “Brexit” and should be informing the public of urgent action they are taking now to support important industries such as the oil and gas sector?

[Mark Field]

A huge number of actions are taking place now. It is far, far too early to have any definitive approach as to exactly what Brexit will entail. We have to ensure, to an extent, that we get as much of the benefit of being in the single market—I see that, obviously, in the context of the City of London and its passporting rights—as is compatible with the public’s clear view about free movement of people. I hope that in the months ahead we will begin to work on that. However, it is far too early, and it would be doing a disservice to all industries—oil and gas and others—that are so dependent on exports and on being global industries, with the expertise that they have across the globe, to be definitive about precisely what role Brexit has to play.

I wanted only to make a few brief comments on new clause 10 with regard to the patent box. I am sorry if I am moving slightly ahead of the observations of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on this matter. There has perhaps been a danger that Governments of all political colours over the past decade or so have been rather too much in thrall to certain industries, whether financial services or the global internet technology industries. It is worth pointing out that the benefit—the very significant benefit—of the whole patent box plan that was put in place by the former Chancellor some years ago is that it has begun to enable intellectual property value to be quantified and used as collateral in many of the fast-growth companies in the technology sphere. It strikes me that the Treasury, any Treasury, will now need new sources of revenue to swell our collective coffers at a time when the deficits remain dangerously high. Indeed, in what might be regarded as normal peacetime conditions we have an unprecedentedly high rate of deficit.

I also think that it would be wise not to ignore the level of public anger at the wilful tax avoidance of a number of the digital disruptors that are potentially the beneficiaries of this patent box plan, and the influence of that on the western economies has at times been somewhat pernicious. The sobering truth is that the global technology and communications service providers’ stratospheric growth over the past two decades has been aided by their ability to avoid taxation. Whether it is Google, Uber, Facebook or Apple, to name but four, they have been able to squirrel away their profits in the most tax advantageous manner, and I hope that the Treasury will consider that, as well as issues around the patent box, not just in the next six months but in the years to come to ensure that we have a more equitable situation that will be accepted by the public at large.

I accept also that as regards creative industries and global technology players it would be wise to reflect that perhaps elements of this advantageous tax treatment, not just by the UK Government but by other Governments in the western world, have been the price that taxpayers have had to pay to secure the essential co-operation in the sphere of internet surveillance that western Governments believe—rightly, in my view—to be so vital to national security.

I do believe, however, that it is time to recognise that corporation tax as we know it is probably past its sell-by date as an appropriate means of capturing value in a modern globalised economy. A levy on turnover, rather than profits, might in time be the best way forward—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I appreciate that the Floor of the House is perhaps not the place to be making policy, but I hope that the Treasury will at least give it some serious thought, particularly for these sort of industries. I always worry when “Hear, hear” comes from the wrong quarter, and I only wish there were a few colleagues on the Benches behind me to agree—but it came from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) and from elsewhere.

At the beginning of the year, Google made the headlines when it was revealed that despite employing some 2,400 people in the UK and harvesting a national estimated profit in excess of £1 billion—we obviously do not know exactly what that profit level was—it was able to pay corporation tax at a level of just 3%. Even before its recent travails, last year Apple declared foreign pre-tax profits of some $47.5 billion, on which it paid only $4.7 billion—some 9.9%—of tax, compared with group-wide income taxes of some $17.7 billion. That suggests that taxes on profits will not be the right way forward, particularly in these global industries where there is a risk that money can be squirreled aside. That said, it is important to say that the patent box, while purportedly and in some ways giving preferential treatment in this area at which we should look closely, has none the less brought some significant benefits.

One of the biggest problems that faces many internet businesses as they grow is the ability to quantify the value of their intellectual property rights. In many ways, failure to do that means that they do not get the opportunity to collateralise their book value to be able to borrow for the future. The patent box has made some successes in this regard.

I apologise for jumping the gun, as I know that we are slightly more interested in hearing the justification from the Opposition for their new clause 10. I do not feel that it would be the right way forward at the moment, but there are some important debates we need to have not just on the workings of the patent box-type legislation but on ensuring that we have a level playing field and a system that—more importantly—is understood and supported by the general public. Nothing has been more damaging for many of the big internet and technology service providers than the slew of bad headlines over the past few years about their avoidance of tax. In these difficult economic times, in particular, that is something that we can ill afford in this country.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I think the argument is sound. Until we obtain a fiscal rule that reflects the reality of our economy and our future, we will not return to the dynamism that is needed to restore growth and to ensure that we have wages and jobs that are beneficial to the community overall rather than the low paid and insecure work that we have at the moment.

Let me press on, because I do not want to strain your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not just Members on these Benches who believe that the fiscal rules adopted by the Government are not fit for purpose. The former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), called for a £100 billion infrastructure fund to invest in schools and housing. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government called for tax cuts across the board and spoke about a Growing Britain fund, funded by more borrowing. The new Prime Minister repeated today the need to abandon the surplus target—perhaps to let it slip. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spoke about the need for “prosperity, not austerity”. We welcome all those conversions to our line of argument, but none of this can be achieved within the confines of the charter as it now stands until the Office for Budget Responsibility advises otherwise.

We saw the consequences of the policies based on the old fiscal framework yesterday in a report from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies. Let me just remind Members what the report said: the incomes of young people are still 7% below where they were before the financial crisis, and the incomes of those in their 30s, 40s and 50s have remained stagnant. Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, has spoken about a “lost decade” for earnings. McKinsey reports that four fifths of households have seen either no improvement or falling earnings. That is what we have to show for the year of fiscal rules from the former Chancellor. There is a consensus now across the country, from the TUC to the CBI, that investment is needed. Earlier this year the IMF told the Government that it had no objections on the grounds of fiscal responsibility to the Government undertaking more investment. The OECD agrees, but until the OBR gives permission to suspend the surplus rule, the Chancellor is constrained by his own rules.

The Government’s current plans for public sector net investment for the rest of this Parliament are for it to fall in each year, from £36.4 billion this year to £32.1 billion in 2019-20. Of course, we do not expect a full Budget now, but the least we need is a commitment to recognise the changed times that we are living in. The uncertainty about public investment comes on top of uncertainty about the structural funds for regions—which are set to lose up to £10 billion if we leave the EU—and further uncertainty for those reliant on projects funded by the European Investment Bank. I repeat that it is essential that, as a minimum, there is a guarantee from the Government soon to protect these funds in some form on an equivalent level.

There is an alternative; there has always been an alternative. Members of the Government Front-Bench team now see it, in part. Opposition Members have said so for some time. There is an alternative based upon investing in the future, growing the economy and allowing fiscal policy to work hand in hand with monetary policy. Professor Mariana Mazzucato has argued for the need for long-term, patient investment. We support that. It is true that the sale of ARM Holdings to SoftBank indicates that there is potential for new industries and innovation, but that potential needs long-term financing, which includes Government investment in infrastructure and research.

After the leave vote, more forecasters have cut their growth forecast. The IMF has joined them. Yesterday it revised down its prognosis for next year from 2.1% to 0.8%. With the current account deficit having hit record highs in the past year—in the most recent figures, it stands at 6.5%—our plan for the future cannot just be to fund that indefinitely with more overseas sales, such as that of ARM. We hope that the Chancellor will heed those who are calling for a much needed and eminently affordable change of direction.

It is a tragedy for this country that the Conservatives have only noticed that there is an alternative as a result of the leave vote, which I fear they helped to bring about. I announced on Monday that the Labour party supports a large programme of investment and will support the Government in a large programme of investment.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It was only a year ago that the hon. Gentleman was telling the media that he supported George Osborne’s austerity charter. He has changed his mind and I welcome that U-turn, but more than 20 Labour MPs voted for the charter. Not a single SNP MP has voted for austerity. When will the people of the UK see a unified position against austerity across the Labour Benches, or can we in the SNP expect to continue ad infinitum as the only credible opposition to Tory austerity?

[John McDonnell]

Good try. Initially last year I thought the fiscal charter was so ludicrous that I was just going to rubbish it or ignore it. Then, as people remember, I made a U-turn because I thought we could defeat it, because we had virtually all the Labour party and others demonstrating that it was ludicrous. We predicted that every target set in the fiscal charter would be missed, and we were right. The Labour party is an anti-austerity party. We will campaign against austerity, but more importantly now, we are campaigning for a long-term future plan of investment.

I think we are winning the argument right across the piece. As I said, from partners in industry and across the political parties—even in the Conservative party now, as we saw in the leadership campaign—there are voices calling for hundreds of billions of pounds of investment. We are winning that argument. The problem is now that we need decisive change from Government with regard to the fiscal rule; otherwise Britain will remain on hold.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

1. What assessment he has made of the (a) extent of and (b) economic effect of assets and capital being moved out of the UK as a result of the outcome of the EU referendum.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

2. What steps he is taking to update the Government's long-term economic plan in response to the outcome of the EU referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

While it is clear that the referendum decision represents a shock to the UK economy, thanks to the actions taken over the past six years by my predecessor, the economy is well placed to respond. I will work closely with the Bank of England to provide immediate stability and to maintain confidence in the fundamental health of the UK economy as we prepare for the autumn statement. As further post-referendum economic data are published, the economy’s short-term response to the Brexit decision will become clearer. If further measures are required, they will be announced in the autumn statement.

[Philip Boswell]

Given colleagues’ anecdotal evidence of capital flight, the recent vote to leave the EU has plunged the economy into volatility and uncertainty. The Conservative Government have been slow to act and have yet to provide an economic strategy, so will the Chancellor tell the people of the UK when they will get an insight into the scale of capital flight following the Brexit vote?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the shock of the exit vote at the referendum has created short-term turbulence in the UK economy, but we are well placed to manage it. In answer to his question about data, a series of data publications during the late summer and autumn will inform a proper response at the autumn statement.

Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

We wish to return to the matter on Report, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Fuel duty regulator regime

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review of fuel duty to establish the form of fuel duty regulator regime which would best ensure stability of pricing, and report to Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act.’—(Philip Boswell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

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

I understand that we are going to be running through new clauses 1 to 6. If it is your pleasure, Mr Howarth, I will speak to new clause 4, as advised.

[The Chair]

New clauses 2 and 3 have already been debated. We are now dealing with new clauses 4 and 5, which are open to debate. Is that helpful?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

They do not need to be moved.

[Philip Boswell]

I apologise for any confusion, Mr Howarth. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I rise to ask the Minister to review the need for a fuel duty regulation regime that could mitigate the worst excesses of fuel price fluctuations and best ensure the stability of pricing. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that fuel prices fluctuate, but it is perhaps not so obvious that the oil price typically runs through a cycle of approximately seven or eight years. As sure as oil prices go down, they inevitably go up. The fluctuation of the price between $125 per barrel in 2012 to under $30 per barrel earlier this year has had a massive impact on producers and users alike. It is good news for some that oil prices appear to be on the rise again, with oil sitting at around $50 per barrel today.

The fluctuations seriously affect road haulage companies, private road users and other transport services, as well as domestic fuel users across the country. Some of the most severely affected are those who are subject to fuel poverty. As a responsible fuel-duty regulator should, the Government could protect the most vulnerable people from the worst vagaries of the markets. In Scotland, 35% of households are affected by fuel poverty, which I am sure the Minister will agree is unacceptable. I urge him to consider a review with the objective of regulating fuel prices via a fuel duty regulator. I advise the Committee that we will press new clause 4 to a vote.

[Mr Gauke]

The Government oppose the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill. We recognise that, even with the recent fall in fuel prices, fuel costs remain a significant part of business and household costs, which is why it was announced at Budget 2016 that fuel duty would remain frozen for the sixth year in a row, thereby saving the average driver £75 a year and the average haulier £2,400 a year, relative to the pre-2010 fuel duty escalator. Our policy has provided greater certainty for consumers and businesses and has left pump prices much lower than they would have been.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is asking the Chancellor to undertake a review of fuel duty to establish a form of fuel duty regulatory regime that would ensure the stability of pricing. Members will remember that at Budget 2011 the Chancellor put forward a proposal for a fair fuel stabiliser that would have linked fuel duty rates more closely with oil prices. That policy would have meant that if oil prices were high, fuel duty rates would increase by RPI only, as the Government would have more revenues from the supplementary charge levied on oil and gas production. If oil prices were below the trigger price, fuel duty would have been increased by RPI plus 1p per litre, and the supplementary charge cut back to 20%. The fair fuel stabiliser was abolished in 2014 so that the Government could support the oil and gas industry without raising the tax burden on motorists. Had it been maintained, we would have had to raise fuel duty at the Budget.

A fuel duty regulator that links fuel duty to changes in oil prices would destabilise public finances by making receipts collected from the Government’s fifth-largest tax more volatile. Since 2010, oil prices have shown significant volatility, with the price per barrel ranging from between $30 to $130. By contrast, pump prices have not shown the same level of volatility.

Finance Bill (Third sitting)

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Howarth. As the Minister has spoken to both new clause 3 and new clause 6, I seek clarification that I may attend to both at the same time.

[The Chair]

Yes.

[Philip Boswell]

Thank you. In relation to new clause 3, the cut to the supplementary charge set out in clause 54 is of course welcome. It will assist in encouraging business investment, and I commend this initiative. However, the UK Government’s support for the oil and gas industry, as it pertains to the cut in the supplementary charge and in a more general sense, does not go far enough. The alterations made to the financing of the oil and gas sector fall significantly short of the fiscal and regulatory reforms necessary to ensuring a steady recovery in the ongoing North sea crisis. Despite the oil price continuing to rise—it is currently around $50 for Brent crude—instead of the extensive regulatory changes experienced over the past 15 years, stability and certainty are required to increase and retain investment as well as some incentivisation. I must admit to being further encouraged by the Minister’s statements in this respect.

However, the UK Government must consider all possibilities that could facilitate fresh investment in the oil and gas sector. These possibilities need not be restricted to fiscal support. For example, schemes such as Government guarantees ought to be explored. I would welcome such initiatives from the Minister. Has he considered further the following suggestions, made by the Scottish Government to the Chancellor in February 2016: removing fiscal barriers, specifically for exploration and enhanced oil recovery; implementing fiscal reforms to improve access to decommissioning tax relief and encourage late-life asset transfers—that would reduce costs and help prevent premature cessation of production, which is critical if marginal fields are to be garnered in future—and implementing additional non-fiscal support, such as Government loan guarantees, to sustain investment in the sector? I welcome his commitment to future legislation, especially in relation to cluster allowances, and look forward to its introduction. The industry has called for a comprehensive strategic review of tax rates and investment allowances. Based upon my own experience of working in the sector, I believe that this review would be beneficial, hence my support for new clause 3.

In relation to new clause 6, the UK continental shelf is one of the first large fields in the world to reach super-mature status. This poses both a challenge and an enormous amount of opportunity. While no reservoir on the planet has harvested more than 50% of its reserves, and most of the “sweet oil”—the high-quality, easy-to-reach oil found to date, which requires minimum processing—has gone from the sector, we need to look at improving recovery and the technology required to maximise output through enhanced oil recovery, in order to maximise profits from these fields, marginal or otherwise.

Decommissioning is a key part of the life cycle of UKCS assets. Some have now lasted for over three decades, which in many cases considerably exceeds their original design life. It is advances in technology and additional tie-backs—additional nearby fields that can be tied into the existing infrastructure—which would otherwise be unprofitable if they required a bespoke pipeline, that have made our oil and gas industry so successful.

Oil & Gas UK has estimated that between now and 2040 the total decommissioning spend in the North sea on offshore assets is set to rise by £46 billion. That represents a huge opportunity for domestic supply chains, not to mention extensive finds further west of Shetland and off the west coast of Scotland, which as yet have hardly been touched. The companies that operate on the UK continental shelf are respected all over the world, as it is there, in rough seas with heavy swells, that technology has advanced in conjunction with safety measures to ensure that the North sea, and Scotland in particular, are at the forefront of offshore construction and sub-sea technology, which is something I specialised in at BP, Shell and Premier Oil.

Given our well-deserved status in sub-sea technology and the maturity of some of our fields, there is a real opportunity to become world leaders in well plugging and decommissioning. The UK Government need to incentivise and support the oil and gas industry so that UKCS expertise can be further developed in the North sea and exported around the globe. That begins with ensuring that the oil and gas industry is working in a fiscal regime that is appropriate to the maturity of the field, which is what new clause 6 seeks to do. Although there are always new fields being discovered and technological advances rendering previously unprofitable reservoirs profitable, it is in the management of mature assets, via enhanced oil recovery and further tie-backs, that optimise power output and profitability, a strategy adopted by Statoil, our near neighbours, the Norwegian national oil and gas company, where every barrel counts. That has proved very successful and is a strategy we should copy.

The removal of fiscal and regulatory barriers is imperative to the advancement of an internationally competitive tax regime in the North sea, such as Norway’s incentive to remove taxation on exploration where the contractor or operator drills a duster. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) in September 2015, committed to a proactive policy to encourage the development of a capable and competitive UK supply chain. That proactive approach needs to start sooner rather than later.

I welcome the Minister’s announcement on the oil and gas technology centre in Aberdeen, and on the decommissioning focus in Aberdeen and the offshore construction centre in the UK, but what steps have the Government taken to compensate oil and gas companies for exploration in the UKCS where a duster is drilled? For example, in Norway no tax is applied to such exploration. What tax incentives are in place, or are being considered, to encourage or subsidise decommissioning projects by UK companies, where new technologies, techniques or even tried and tested decommissioning methods are utilised on various types of assets?

In September 2015 Wood Mackenzie reported that low oil prices could render marginal fields economically unviable and lead to potential decommissioning of up to 140 fields within the next five years. I reiterate that Brent crude remains at around $50 a barrel. If prices continue to rise to the forecast $70 to $75 dollars a barrel after the summer, what tax incentives has the Minister put in place to identify and retain critical infrastructure across the UKCS?

With that in mind, new clause 6 calls for a review of the ways in which the tax regime could be changed to increase the competitiveness of UK-registered companies in bidding for supply chain contracts associated with the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure, with the aim of ensuring that we take advantage of this momentous opportunity.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

With permission, I will speak to clauses 54 and 128 together before moving on to the remaining clauses and new clauses.

As we have heard, clauses 54 and 128 reduce the rates of the supplementary charge levied on the ring-fenced profits of companies involved in oil and gas production and petroleum revenue tax respectively. Companies involved in the exploration for and production of oil and gas in the UK are charged ring fence corporation tax and a supplementary charge. RFCT is calculated in the same way as corporation tax but with the addition of a ring fence so that losses on the mainland cannot be offset against profits from continental shelf fields. It is important to note that the rates of RFCT differ from those of corporation tax, and that the main rate of RFCT is 30%. The supplementary charge is an additional charge on a company’s ring-fenced profits. Clause 54 would reduce the supplementary charge from 20% to 10% from 1 January 2016.

Petroleum revenue tax, which was introduced in 1975, is a tax on the profits from oil and gas production from fields approved before 16 March 1993. The Finance Act 1993 reduced the rate from 75% to 50%, and it was then reduced to 35% from 1 January 2016. Clause 128 reduces the rate to zero, effectively abolishing the tax, as the Chancellor explained in his Budget speech. These two measures, taken together, are expected to cost the Treasury just over £1 billion between this financial year and 2021. The Government expect the reduction in rates to increase the post-tax profits of affected companies. This will make investment in oil and gas projects on the UK continental shelf more attractive, which will lead to additional production of oil and gas.

According to the tax information and impact note, and as the Minister confirmed today, there are around 200 companies extracting oil and gas in the UK. The industry directly supports 30,000 jobs, with another 250,000 in the supply chain. The decrease in the supplementary charge and the petroleum revenue tax will have a positive impact on company post-tax profits and result in lower instalment payments being made. We have already welcomed this support for the UK’s oil and gas industry. The industry trade body, Oil & Gas UK, has broadly welcomed this reduction in the headline rate of tax paid on UK oil and gas production, from a rate of 50% to 67.5% to a rate of 40% across all fields.

However, it is important to note that Oil & Gas UK has stated that the reduction in tax will help only those companies that are actually making a profit. It estimates that fewer than half a dozen companies are paying corporation tax this year. Indeed, the 2016 Budget stated that the tax receipts for these companies in 2015-16 were zero. A reduction in those tax rates is therefore welcome, but it is a long-term benefit.

Frankly, I think that more needs to be done in the short term. Stakeholders have said that they are more concerned about the lack of exploration activity. Only one well was drilled in the first quarter of 2016, so more has to be done to stimulate exploration. Can the Minister confirm whether any plans are in the pipeline—excuse the pun, but we have to get our fun somewhere in the Finance Bill—to stimulate exploration on the UK continental shelf in the short term?

I have also heard concerns from the industry about the late-life asset market. As we have heard today from Scottish Members, decommissioning is a normal part of a production cycle, but it is very expensive. I am aware that a tax relief is available, but it depends on a company’s tax history. If new companies buy older fields, they cannot access the relief, thus blocking late-life asset trade. Essentially, assets are not being sold on as they should be. The policy paper on the 2016 Budget states that the Government are open to exploring

“whether decommissioning tax relief could better encourage transfers of late-life assets”,

if “significant progress” on reducing the cost of decommissioning has been made. I worry that that is rather vague. I would therefore welcome clarification from the Minister on exactly what “significant progress” means.

Clauses 55 to 59 make minor changes to the investment allowance, cluster area allowance and onshore allowance. These three allowances provide relief by reducing the amount of ring-fenced profits on which the supplementary charge is due. Investment and cluster area allowances are given at a rate of 62.5%, and onshore allowance at 75%. Clauses 55 and 58 update the conditions that disqualify expenditure from generating investment allowance and cluster area allowance respectively. They expand the conditions following the extension of the allowance to include some leasing expenditure by secondary legislation not yet enacted. As we have heard from the Minister, this is to ensure that there are no gaps in the legislation that would permit these allowances to be generated twice. This will have effect for expenditure incurred on or after 16 March 2016.

The clauses are technical measures with which I have no issue whatever. However, stakeholders have expressed frustration that it has taken so long to lay before Parliament the regulations extending the allowances. According to Oil & Gas UK, the consultation on the draft statutory instrument concluded in January, and since then things have gone quiet. Could the Minister take this opportunity to confirm exactly when the draft SI will be laid before Parliament?