Budget Resolutions
Richard Bacon Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
After 13 minutes of what I am sure we all agree was pure gold from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), I am going to make a more focused and narrow-cast speech. I particularly welcome this opportunity to follow a fellow graduate of the London School of Economics, although before he started slating soft social science degrees, he might have declared his own interest, in that he wrote a book about Harold Laski, who probably did more damage to the world economy through the people he taught over 50 years than almost any other human being alive. I should like to declare my own interest, in that I am a member of the right to build taskforce, which was referenced in the White Paper. I thank the Secretary of State for seconding Mario Wolf, an official from the Department for Communities and Local Government, to run the taskforce. I should also like to thank the Nationwide Foundation for funding it for the next three years.
I welcome this Budget. It is a Budget for housing, and I particularly welcome the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is going to carry out an urgent review of why there is such a gap between extant planning permissions and actual build-out of housing. This is a complicated subject, but it is not that complicated. The real reason for the gap is that house builders have no incentive to build more houses than they can sell. The Home Builders Federation, the trade body for the volume house builders, did a study entitled “Why buy new? Home buyer intentions and opinions”. It was commissioned from YouGov, a professional opinion poll firm, and its conclusions were startling. It found that 67% of people would prefer not to or were unlikely to buy the product of the volume house builders—in other words, a new home. If 67% of people do not want to buy your product, you might consider changing your product, but that would involve severe risks for volume house builders, because they already face a welter of planning conditions before they can even start.
We have a broken housing market in which demand cannot sufficiently influence supply and drive volumes. I therefore particularly welcome the housing White Paper, because it offers the first explicit acknowledgement that we have a housing model that is broken. The precondition for solving our problems is that we acknowledge the existence of those problems, and Government policy is now to acknowledge that we have a broken housing model and that we need to fix it. This Budget takes many good steps in that direction.
It is my fundamental belief that the only way to make “development” a good word—it is often seen as a pejorative term, and the word “developer” is often viewed as a swear word—is to have good development. At the moment, however, most people feel that they have no say over what gets built, where it gets built, what it looks like or who has the first chance to live there. We need to change all that. We need to change the conversation. Development should be about making well-designed, well-built places that are well connected, well served and well run with good governance. They should be environmentally sensitive places where green is normal, and with a thriving economy offering local jobs. They should be active, inclusive and safe, and fair for everyone. In other words, we should separate the business of place-making—which is what all those things are about—from the business of home building.
All those things that I have just described are part of the public weal. They are part of the public responsibility to make great places. That is why the people who work in the planning profession go into planning, but when they get there they often find that they are unable to achieve those things, and end up being the person who says no. The way to separate place-making from home-making, and to make home-making available for everyone, is to have large numbers of serviced plots at scale, and thanks to the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which is now on the statute book, that is now going to be easier than ever before.
People sometimes think that this is a minor obsession of mine, and they would be right, but it is for a good reason. There is no area of public policy that this does not touch on. Under that Act, it is not only individuals who can register for the chance to get a piece of land; associations of individuals can also do so. It is tenure neutral. Those associations of individuals could be the governors of a high school looking to fill difficult-to-fill teaching posts; they could be the directors of a social services department trying to recruit new senior social work managers to difficult-to-fill positions; they could be the Ministry of Defence looking to retain military personnel; they could be the Royal British Legion seeking to look after veterans better; and they could even be ex-offenders. I was pleased to have had the chance last week to brief the Secretary of State on the right to build taskforce’s latest proposals, and the Lord Chancellor has now invited me to do the same in relation to ex-offenders, because there is so much more that this policy could do.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Jones)
I thank all the 30 or so hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate for their very thoughtful speeches. I will make sure that all their points, suggestions and concerns—including the specific ones mentioned by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), and especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon)—are raised with the relevant Departments. I gently say to the House that we have had many representations regretting what was not in the Budget, but I am not sure that we received so many in advance of it and before its details were set, even though my door was always open and I met colleagues from all parties.
I will focus my comments on housing. This is a Budget that builds a Britain fit for the future. It is one that aims to ensure that every generation prospers and can look forward to a better standard of living than the previous one. When he opened the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government spoke very passionately about the importance of home ownership, and I simply could not agree with him more. Providing homes is key to building communities, and to giving families the stability and the security they deserve. Moreover, bringing home ownership back within the reach of first-time buyers is part of our broader intergenerational commitment to younger generations.
However, affordability is a problem. The average house price is now almost eight times the average person’s salary, compared with just 3.6 times two decades ago—in my own area, the ratio is over 14 times—and the number of 25 to 34-year-olds owning their own home has dropped from 59% to just 38% over the past 13 years.
The core of this problem is clearly a lack of supply. However, we have delivered 1.1 million new homes since 2010, including nearly 350,000 affordable homes, and the total housing supply reached 217,000 last year. It is worth noting that that was the first time in almost a decade that the 200,000 milestone had been reached. We of course need to go further, and to make sure that more homes are built. This Budget sets in train a comprehensive set of reforms to address the failure of, I must say, successive Governments to provide enough homes.
Andrew Jones
I simply say to my hon. Friend that I know he has worked very hard on this issue. I welcome his work, and he has made a very valuable contribution to the housing debate.
This Budget sets out an ambition to deliver 300,000 new homes every year, which is 40% more than the current output and 50% more than the target we were left by Labour.
Tax Avoidance and Multinational Companies
Richard Bacon Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I will deal directly with the issue of transparency in a moment.
On the issue of how our international tax system works, I have explained that it is based on economic activity. However, I would be the first to say that that international tax system needs to be brought into the modern world. That is the very reason why the UK has led the way on the base erosion and profit-shifting process. We should also be aware that there are particular issues with the US tax system, which is failing to tax intellectual property developed in the US in the way that it should.
I gave the example of video games companies. However, I recognise that there are many cases that are much more complex, and where it is not so easy to identify where the economic activity takes place. There is an issue about where multinational companies allocate their profits and where they identify economic activity as taking place. There is a need to address that, which is why we need tax rules that genuinely reflect where economic activity takes place, to ensure that profits are aligned with it. However, that is a very different matter from making big claims about profits from sales and saying that those sales profits have to be taxed where the sales take place. That is the misunderstanding I wish to address.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister is right, of course, that these issues are sometimes very complicated. However, sometimes there are loopholes that are exploited. Will he identify some of the loopholes closed by this Government that were opened by the previous Labour Government?
Mr Gauke
There is a whole host I could draw attention to, but in the interests of time, I will not run through that lengthy list. I have it here, and there are quite a number of cases—there are 40 I can identify straightaway—where there were loopholes, and we have tried to address that.
The diverted profits tax—I will come back to this again in detail in a moment—is designed to ensure that, where companies divert their profits away from the UK, and where the economic activity is happening in the UK, we get some of the tax yield.
Roger Mullin
Many people throughout Britain will think that the hon. Gentleman has made a very fair point. That is why I have been arguing that we must have a proper investigation and why, perhaps in the longer run, we need to do something about greater transparency. It will be very difficult for us to bring a proper critique to bear if we do not get such clarification.
It must, of course, be admitted that this is not a new phenomenon. I first became aware of concerns about multinationals paying their fair share of UK taxes back in the early 1970s, when I briefly worked for the multinational IBM, and I am aware of concerns predating that. This has not been going on for just one or two years; Governments have not been able to resolve this issue satisfactorily for decades, which emphasises its complexity. The issue has been around for a long time, regardless of whether this country had a Labour or Tory Government and regardless of which parties formed Governments in many other countries.
I remember that the concerns back in the early 1970s were about what was called “transfer pricing”. For example, a company could buy a handle from a parent company in another country and charge an exorbitant fee for it, which allowed them easily to transfer profits from one area to another. I would be the first to admit that there have been moves to tighten up many such matters since the 1970s, but it remains a fundamental problem to this day. Corporation tax seems to be very susceptible to avoidance by multinational corporations because of the way in which they can, quite legally, operate.
Mr Bacon
The Public Accounts Committee found that HMRC as a whole had only 65 specialists in transfer pricing, which was about the same as each of the big four accounting firms. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome this Government’s introduction of more transfer pricing specialists in HMRC?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I say to hon. Members who wish to speak but are now making interventions that I assume they will not mind if they go to the bottom of the list because they have almost used up their time?
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I will be brief.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) said that paying corporation tax was an optional extra. If he is right—and there are some good arguments for why he might be right—it is because of the unbridled complexity of the system. I used to carry a number in my head: I thought that the tax code was 11,000 pages long. However, when I went to a Public Accounts Committee tax conference organised by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)—the Dame Professor Lady right hon. Member for Barking—I discovered that it was 17,000 pages long, and I was told on the radio yesterday that the figure might now be nearer 20,000.
If we made the Bible 10 times longer, we would not expect there to be less work for theologians. We need to sort this out. Complexity is not always avoidable in a mature economy, but there are steps that can be taken to make the code simpler. The Office of Tax Simplification examined 155 different tax reliefs and recommended that 47 should be abolished—43 actually were abolished—but over the same period, the Government of the day introduced 134 new reliefs. According to the Office of Tax Simplification, that produced a total of 1,140. Incidentally, HMRC had thought that there were only 398, which shows how extraordinarily complex the system has become.
That is the central problem, and it needs to be tackled. If a system that can only be dealt with by a high priestly caste is combined with a global economy, a country will get what we have got. It was this Government who introduced the idea of an Office of Tax Simplification, and it is this Government who are starting to do something about flattening and simplifying the tax system.
There is also the question of the cost of tax reliefs, which is sometimes much higher than HMRC expects. When the right hon. Member for Barking was the films Minister, for very good reasons she introduced a film tax credit. She was then horrified to discover that, using the law of the land, some very clever entrepreneurs and accountants were going around doing things which bore some relation to UK film activity, but perhaps too tangentially for the right hon. Lady’s taste. Much of what had been done was found by the courts to be within the law, and ended up costing HMRC, and taxpayers, hundreds of millions of pounds more than had been expected.
This Government are starting to tackle the problem. They have not made all the progress that they need to make, because this is a very big problem indeed, but at least they are starting to tackle it. The last Government did not collect the tax, but this Government are moving in the right direction, and I commend them for what they are doing.
Housing and Planning Bill (First sitting)
Richard Bacon Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I welcome you all to the first Committee sitting of the Housing and Planning Bill. I hope to keep our discussions pleasant and civilised. There are a couple of little rules. We are not allowed to have coffees, or to drink or eat anything else, and if anyone’s mobile phone goes off they will earn my strict displeasure, or a wiggle of my eyebrow at the very least.
Before we begin the more interesting part of the sitting, I ask Members who have interests to declare now to do so.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I am organising a seminar on 20 November called “How should Norfolk grow?” It has eight commercial sponsors: Barclays bank, the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, the local train franchise, Anglian Water, Saffron Housing, Norwich International airport, Swallowtail Print and the Maids Head hotel.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
Matthew Pennycook
Q 8 As the Bill stands, have you been assured that they are an addition and will not simply squeeze out other affordable housing in the capital?
Richard Blakeway: A number of the key points will be articulated in the regulations. What is on the face of the Bill at the moment means that starter homes can certainly work alongside other intermediate products in the capital. The key bit will be what is in the regulations. One of the key issues is the quota of starter homes that will be required, which will be articulated in the regulations. There has been speculation that it will be 20%, but we are waiting to see the regulations. It is important that they work alongside each other. Just to pick up on your point, we have a number of intermediate products where the investment is locked in in perpetuity, and we would like to see that continue.
Mr Bacon
Q 9 Mr Blakeway, what possibilities are there for the provision of serviced plots within the GLA area for people who wish to build their own home, either individually or in what the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 calls “associations of individuals”, who come together to build their own houses?
Richard Blakeway: We think there is a real role for both custom build and self-build. On the identification of plots, we are working closely with local authorities to compile a list of potential sites. In addition, the GLA is acting as one of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s vanguards and establishing a register of people with an interest. We are seeing a phenomenal rate of interest in London: more than 600 people have signed the register in the past three months. People often look at London and say that custom build and self-build cannot work in the capital, but we do not believe that is the case. We think it has a role to play in the capital—particularly in outer London. We also think that custom build, in particular, has a role to play among conventional house builders and housing associations. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot reserve a proportion of plots for custom build on a large regeneration scheme or development site.
Mr Bacon
Q 11 In relation to large cities, Berlin has more than 3,000 dwellings that have been developed very recently using self-build and custom house building. Are you saying that in large urban areas such as London it is not a problem to do it in the way that some people are suggesting?
Richard Blakeway: It is more challenging because we have a very heated land market and development opportunities tend to be more complex, but it should not be dismissed. We think it has a particular role to play, for example in outer London where the kind of density that might be built through custom build and self-build is appropriate to the local vernacular.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q 12 Are you certain that the sale of high-value council housing will yield enough resource to fund the right-to-buy scheme? Do you think it will guarantee that enough houses are built?
Richard Blakeway: Certainly within London, our analysis—and we have had some support from Savills on this—suggests that there are sufficient capital returns and receipts from the sale of high-value council houses in the capital to cover the cost of discounts in the capital and the cost of reprovision, as well as other things such as debt financing and so on. The straightforward answer is yes, within London.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 36 You say there is an acceptance that some of the proceeds will leave the capital. Do you think, therefore, that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) to keep the proceeds within London is unrealistic?
Philippa Roe: I would like him to see it succeed. Whether the Government will accept that, given the financial pressures they will face with right-to-buy sales outside London, I do not know. It is worth trying, but I am not sure whether he will succeed.
Mr Bacon
Q 37 Councillor Glanville, you said that you want to build, in your authority, affordable housing on land that you own. You emphasised the importance of exemptions. Are you promoting housing co-operatives as a way of delivering affordable housing? Perhaps the other witnesses could answer for their own authorities.
Phil Glanville: To answer that question, we have quite a few housing co-operatives within the borough already. They tend to be managing existing stock that they have been bequeathed through CPOs in the past and through the squatting movement in the ’70s and ’80s. As far as I am aware, they are not currently seeking to develop. We are focusing on working with housing association partners and our own new build programme that will deliver 3,000 homes over 10 years, 52% of which will be truly affordable. The rental properties there will be council rented homes on our land, making best use of our assets. We are bringing forward 18 sites. In fact, the borough is the largest house builder of any kind within Hackney, including building homes for sale, which is important as we are not against building homes for sale or for low-cost home ownership; we just do not think that the Bill will help with that process in boroughs such as Hackney.
We are also doing regeneration with our partners. We are tripling the density of an estate called Woodberry Down in the north of the borough, where we are building 5,500 homes over the next 20 years. We have no lack of ambition to develop such homes within the borough. With some of the freedoms that Councillor Roe mentioned around the HRA, we could do a lot more.
Mr Bacon
Q 38 To be clear, for the land that you own on which you plan to build affordable housing going forward, the council is not proposing that those be held as housing co-operatives.
Phil Glanville: No.
Sir Steve Bullock: We also do not expect some of our existing housing co-operatives from that historical period to play a significant part going forward, although we are doing other things. Harking back to an earlier question, we have literally just agreed on a scheme for self-build. However, there is an issue with a number of these alternative approaches that is simply about scale. To get the volume of units that we need, we are having to build in thousands, rather than tens and hundreds. However, we have a housing association that is owned by the tenants, which is now beginning to develop itself. We think that that is potentially a useful development going forward.
Mr Bacon
Q 39 Could you clarify what you meant by “scale”?
Sir Steve Bullock: The housing co-ops tend to be very small. We are talking about building 15,000 additional units of housing in Lewisham over the next period. They would not be in a position to build anything like those kinds of numbers.
Mr Bacon
The existing housing co-operatives.
Sir Steve Bullock: Yes.
Martin Tett: I represent the LGA, rather than an individual borough, so it is probably better if I defer to Councillor Roe on this.
Philippa Roe: Similarly, we have big regeneration plans in Westminster. Everybody thinks that Westminster is extremely wealthy, but we actually have four of the poorest wards in the country with extreme deprivation in them. We have massive regeneration plans for those areas, but it will be us, the council, driving that regeneration programme. We will work with the housing associations that happen to have properties in those areas, but it will be mainly driven by the council, working with the private sector. Again, we will be building market housing to help fund the whole scheme, intermediate housing and social housing.
Mr Bacon
Q 42 Given that there is a lot of concern about right to buy, I am puzzled why authorities that wanted to protect affordable housing would not use the housing co-operative route as an obvious exemption. It is certainly obvious from international evidence that it can be done at scale using housing co-operatives.
Philippa Roe: It has crossed our minds as a route that one could look at.
Mr Bacon
You might want to look at Berlin.
Phil Glanville: Returning to what Mayor Bullock said about scale, it is the scalability of the housing co-ops that exist in London that makes it challenging. We are looking at working with, say, the almshouse movement to build new, affordable homes that are also exempt because people are beneficiaries rather than tenants. Where we can innovate on our land, we will do so, but the scale of the crisis in terms of the thousands of homes that we need to build makes it difficult to use the co-op movement as it is currently constituted.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 43 The National Audit Office recently produced a report saying that some local authorities had reduced their budgets for planning and their planning departments by up to 50%. The Bill contains a number of changes that should expedite the planning process. Will this mean that authorities are more likely to staff up their planning departments with the right number of competent people to be able to turn round applications?
Philippa Roe: The absolute key to having the right staffing within our planning departments is to be able to charge a fee that covers the cost of expediting the planning process. At the moment, we cannot charge anything like enough to cover that cost, so basically our council tax payer is subsidising the developers. We are very lucky in Westminster, because of where we are. We have a Westminster Property Association, which funds six planners, to whom its members have access. We can pay appropriate salaries to attract good people, but they are limited to the Westminster Property Association members. I think other local authorities struggle, as we struggle with the rest of our planning applications. As was mentioned earlier, our good people who have Westminster experience are very valuable in the private sector, and they are being hoovered up. We cannot keep them unless we can pay them the appropriate salaries. We really need planning fees to be raised.
Martin Tett: I completely support Councillor Roe on this. There is an almost universal plea from local authorities, whatever their political complexion, that they be allowed to recoup the costs of planning with appropriate planning fees. That would do a great deal to help us to resource up. I also re-echo the point that some of the salaries that the private sector pays good, experienced planners are very high compared with what local government can pay. It is a real challenge.
European Union Referendum Bill
Richard Bacon Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
In a moment. Why on earth should a Minister not be allowed, as a Minister, to advocate that people might be encouraged to vote? As the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) rightly asked, would a Minister who goes to Brussels for a difficult meeting on an aspect of agricultural policy or of the research and development budget be told by his officials that they would melt away the moment he expressed a view on an issue that might have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone or me in the referendum campaign?
I think we have received genuine undertakings. Everybody wants a fair referendum, so let us not resort to the legalism of section 129—[Hon. Members: “Section 125!”] That shows my regard for legalisms, despite my being a lawyer: section 125 is very important! When we get to Report, let us take a considered look at what would happen if we threw the whole weight of the law at this issue and had one of Her Majesty’s judges adjudicating on whether the pronouncements of some Parliamentary Secretary in Brussels had broken the statutory injunctions and he should have been reduced to silence.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
May I say how much we are enjoying my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech? His casual wafting around of various sections, whether they are the right ones or not, reminds me of one of those lovely days when he said that he had not bothered to read the Maastricht treaty. Will he clarify something that seems to be a bit of a caricature? He says that the whole of Government would have to be closed down and that Ministers would not be able to engage in any business at all, but surely that could only possibly be true if the European Union was so involved in every nook and cranny of this country’s affairs that it could not possibly function without those relationships. Is not that the whole point?
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Before we proceed, in case there was any implied criticism, I have to say that, although the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) might be rambling around the European Union, this is a broad-ranging set of amendments. I have listened to him very carefully and he is, in fact, in order.
Amendment of the Law
Richard Bacon Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
“Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep”—
When is the right hon. Gentleman going to get on with it?
Ed Balls
I don’t know. That was all Greek to me.
Let us stop wasting time with the ridiculous Liberal Democrats and return to the Chancellor’s Budget. The Chancellor claimed, first, that working people are better off than they were in 2010. How out of touch can you get? No wonder Conservative Back Benchers were so muted in the House of Commons yesterday. They know, as we know, the reality of people’s lives. Unlike the Chancellor, they hear it on the doorstep. They know that with wage growth stagnant over the past few years, energy bills rising, and 1.8 million zero-hours contracts, when the Chancellor says there is a recovery, most people say, “Where is the recovery for me? It is not a recovery for me, our family and our community.”
The Chancellor tried to invent a new measure of living standards yesterday. It was a flawed measure because it includes income to universities and charities, but, compared with the first quarter of 2010, in the first quarter of 2015 the Chancellor’s measure has not gone up; it has gone down. Even on his own measure, people are worse off than they were in 2010. We know from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation that on more sensible measures confirmed by the IFS two weeks ago, household incomes are down compared with 2010, and wages after inflation are down by more than £1,600 a year since 2010. This is the first Parliament since the early 1920s when the average person in work will be worse off at the end of the Parliament than they were at the beginning. In answer to the famous Reagan question, “Are you better off than you were five years ago?”, the answer is a resounding no.
We welcome the action to help savers and increase thresholds, but where was the action to help working people? Why did the Chancellor not announce an ambition to raise the national minimum wage to £8 an hour? Why did he not commit to expanding free child care for working parents to 25 hours? Why not cut business rates for small companies? Why not ban exploitative zero-hours contracts? Why not repeat the bank bonus tax and have a compulsory starter job for our young people? Why not scrap his absurd married couples allowance, which he barely mentioned yesterday, because it goes to only a third of married couples, and instead use the money to cut the taxes of working people? That is what he should have done. That is what a Labour Budget will deliver.
The Chancellor’s second claim is that he is rebalancing the economy. We all remember his claim of
“a Britain carried aloft by the march of the makers”—[Official Report, 22 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]
but the independent Office for Budget Responsibility said yesterday that growth is still lower than was forecast in 2010. Growth is set to be slower this year and next year than last year. The OBR confirmed that the Chancellor is on course to miss his 2010 target to double exports to £1 trillion—off course by more than £600 billion, and business investment has been revised down this year. The OBR says that “the growth of potential productivity per hour remains below its historical average throughout the forecast” and that “actual hourly productivity growth has again been weaker than expected”. The only thing it has revised up is its forecast for net migration.
Why did the Chancellor not act to deal with the housing crisis by committing to build 200,000 more homes a year by 2020? Why did he not establish a proper British investment bank for small and medium-sized businesses? Why did he not take up our idea, now the subject of consensus across our country, and establish an independent national infrastructure commission to stop long-term decisions being kicked into the long grass? Why did he not go further and devolve powers, including the uplift on business rates, to all areas in our country, rather than just to some? Why did he not commit to securing Britain’s place in a reformed European Union?
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) on making a strong speech, but I have quite a few differences with it, as I shall explain. What we had yesterday was a Budget that does not meet the challenges of the future, as we are living in an increasingly uncertain world and this Budget does not provide a proper plan to deal with that.
The Business Secretary talked about memory. While we have already heard today that the Liberal Democrats backed the bedroom tax and supported an increase in tuition fees, we should remember, too, that they supported getting rid of the education maintenance allowance and agreed to scrap the Building Schools for the Future project, which affected many schools in my constituency. The Liberal Democrats’ greatest crime, however, is giving cover to the Tory Government to allow them to implement austerity, which has impacted disproportionately and negatively on constituencies such as mine. This gives the lie to the view that the recession and the financial crisis were Labour’s fault. We all know it was down to the banks, and we all know that when Labour left office in 2010 growth was up and unemployment was down. That is the reality.
This Government failed to keep their promises, failed to meet their target on reducing the deficit and failed on borrowing. Their austerity measures in the early part of this Parliament strangled the recovery that had started under the last Labour Government. I could go on about a number of measures, but we should never forget VAT policy, because a Tory Government always raise VAT.
Whatever gloss the Chancellor tried yesterday to put on his economic record and the prospects for the future, the fact remains that the recovery is fragile. The International Monetary Fund says that our real gross domestic product per head is below that of the US and well below that of Germany and France. The productivity problem has not been addressed by this Chancellor or this Government, and we have seen no sign yet that the large cash reserves held by businesses are being released for investment. That is another interesting sign. Many of the jobs created are, of course, insecure, temporary or fixed-hours-contract jobs. Insecurity presents a real problem; many of my constituents are finding that insecurity stops them planning for their future—whether it be in buying a house, picking a holiday or deciding on some of the most basic things in life.
This Government could have done much more on investment in infrastructure and capital projects, and I am sorry that the Chancellor did not say more about them yesterday, rather than making promises of jam tomorrow. Many road and rail projects that the Government have previously announced and trumpeted were planned or started under Labour. We need to do more on investing in our infrastructure. Given the cheap rates of borrowing available to the Government, they should have done more with investment, allowing them to provide many more quality jobs.
Lots of schemes could have been taken forward in every constituency. Let me mention the campaign to restore a lock and open up the Bridgewater canal to the Manchester Ship canal in Runcorn. This was a brilliant scheme put forward by the Runcorn locks restoration society, and it would also help Runcorn town centre. This is a typical example of where money could be found, and I hope that the next Government will do so.
Businesses, and especially small businesses, are still having problems borrowing money, which clearly is stunting further growth. The inability to get banks to lend to small businesses is one of the biggest failures of this Government. I am pleased that a Labour Government will do more to help small businesses. In particular, we will cut business rates for 1.5 million small businesses and then freeze them the following year. A Labour Government will do more.
Of course we have to attract businesses to constituencies such as mine. We do attract them. Halton council has done very well in that respect, but we need more help. Unemployment remains stubbornly high, particularly among the young, and there is a real problem with those not in employment, education or training with an above-average number of our young people in that category. The minimum wage will be important for providing better security, as well as helping people with their pay.
A couple of areas have not been dwelt on sufficiently in the debate so far. If this Government get back in, we will see cuts falling badly on local government, to which I shall return, and on defence, which has seen significant cuts already and no guarantees about the future. The police have been cut significantly, as well.
I find the way in which austerity cuts have been imposed on local government appalling. Local government has important responsibilities, not least for child protection and care and provision for the elderly, yet we have seen massive cuts. My local council, Halton, is considered to be a good and well-managed authority, but between 2010-11 and 2015-16 its Government grant will have been reduced by £46 million, or £365 per head. That is a substantial cut, and the £11 million reduction in next year’s grant represents a further cut of £87 for every man, woman and child. By contrast, the cuts per head in east Cheshire—which is in the Chancellor’s constituency—and West Oxfordshire will be £23 and £32 respectively. Scandalous, unfair cuts are hitting the most socially deprived areas in the country, and putting services in serious danger by lessening councils’ ability to fund and run them. The future Government must address that important issue.
Another big problem in Halton is housing, especially the supply of housing, including social housing, and the inability of young people to get on to the housing ladder. In response to the Chancellor’s announcement of Help to Buy ISAs, today’s edition of Inside Housing states:
“David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation dismissed the move ‘as another short-term initiative for first-time buyers, not a Budget to end the housing crisis.’…The Chartered Institute of Housing has also criticised the move… ‘While the help to buy ISA may help some first time buyers to overcome barriers to home ownership, it fails to address the fundamental problem—that we are simply not building enough homes.”
Derek Twigg
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have promised that if we win the election in a few weeks’ time, we will build 200,000 houses a year. That is a significant improvement on what the present Government have done. They simply have not done enough, and the fact is that there is a major problem with the supply of not just private but social housing. There are nearly 1,350 people on the housing waiting list in Halton, which is one of the smallest boroughs in the country, and the average waiting time is nine years. Housing represents a large part of all MPs’ casework, and a future Government must do something about it. I have already said what Labour will do.
The Chancellor did not say anything about the crisis in the NHS. We know that waiting time targets have been missed, that accident and emergency departments are crowded, and that access to GPs is a problem. We know that people are experiencing real difficulties as a result of waiting times, involving not just A and E services but some other procedures. We have clearly stated that we want to improve access, and to save and transform our NHS with a “time to care” fund worth £2.5 billion, which will pay for 20,000 more nurses, 8,000 more GPs, and a guarantee of cancer tests within one week. The NHS is a fundamental part of our society, and it is appalling that the Chancellor did not refer to it yesterday.
In Halton, the reality of what has happened under this Government—which the Chancellor failed to address yesterday—is that many people are in poverty and experiencing a cost-of-living crisis. People are unable to heat their homes properly, and there has been a massive increase in the use of food banks. Hundreds of families in Halton have suffered as a result of the bedroom tax. Many are struggling to find jobs, and, as I said earlier, a large number of those jobs are insecure and part time. Security is a key issue for my constituents and others, and it must be addressed.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I greatly welcome the Budget and particularly the announcements on housing. I make no apology for talking about housing in a debate opened by the Business Secretary. As the representative of the CBI said at the Homes for Britain rally in Methodist Central Hall earlier this week, housing is a business issue. If employees cannot find somewhere to live that is relatively near work, it affects the way they work, because they spend too long commuting. Housing is central to all our lives, so I welcome the measures the Government have taken on housing in the Budget.
The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who, sadly, is not in his place, referred to the Chartered Institute of Housing’s comment on Help to Buy ISAs—that they would make no difference because they do not address the fundamental problem. I, too, have read that quote, but I thought it was slightly unfair, which is why I intervened on him. The Budget also addresses the supply side through the doubling of the number of housing zones, and I shall concentrate on that subject in my speech. It proposes to create 20 new housing zones which, according to the deputy mayor of London, Richard Blakeway, will provide a “framework for focused engagement” in particular geographical areas, create “planning certainty” and, most importantly, provide funding that is committed to essential infrastructure. I want to concentrate on that last aspect.
A number of endeavours have made an enormous difference over the past few years, in which the Government have engaged with the public and private sectors to provide a focused environment in which huge amounts of activity can occur. The most obvious example is the London Docklands development corporation, which transformed the docklands a generation ago. We can now see the extraordinary development that simply was not there 25 years ago. I have seen something similar in Northern Ireland, in the Laganside development, where the investment of £130 million of public money led to about £1 billion of investment from the private sector. This has transformed the nature of Belfast city centre completely.
The approach that has been adopted in the commercial sector can also be applied in the residential sector, and that is what housing zones are all about. I am pleased about the provision for them in the Budget. If we are to unlock finance for schemes in the residential space, the most important thing is to get rid of the blockages that are making that so difficult to achieve. We have to ask ourselves why housing supply does not rise to meet demand in the way that happens in most other markets. The truth is that people who would like to get involved in the housing market have very limited choices.
The volume house builders do a reasonably good job for the people who want to buy their product, but 75% of the people polled in a YouGov survey said that they did not want to buy the volume house builders’ product. In a well-functioning market, other providers would come in and the range of supply to meet that latent demand, which is not being satisfied, would naturally enter the market. That does not happen in the housing space, however, simply because it is so difficult to get into the market because of problems with access to land and access to finance. The Government’s proposals for housing zones start to address that, and I hope that their announcement in yesterday’s Budget will be the harbinger of a new direction that will solve the housing problem.
The hon. Member for Halton said earlier that Labour would build 200,000 houses if it got into government. I remember, half a generation ago, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), when he was Chancellor, appointing Kate Barker to undertake a review and subsequently announcing the building of 240,000 houses. Announcements do not actually make a difference, however, because it is not Governments or Oppositions who build houses. It is house builders who build houses, and if we took more notice of customers and their preferences, we would get more houses built.
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman might have had a different experience in Norfolk, but in my constituency of Hackney South and Shoreditch, many of those “customers” are non-domiciled overseas landlords who never interact with the people who end up living in their homes. There is often a desire among those developers to get a quick, easy sale over a weekend in places such as Hong Kong and Dubai, rather than putting out to market properties that would benefit local people. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this really needs to be tackled?
Mr Bacon
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I have listened to economists saying that this has not been a problem in London and that the wall of money that has come in to support investment was simply replacing investment that did not happen after the crash, but I am not sure that I agree with them. We see flats in London being exchanged time and again without anyone ever living in them, and there comes a point at which this becomes a moral issue. There is developed property with nobody living in it, and I think that we should be thinking first about our own people. That fundamentally describes the planning problem, and we need to decide how to do these things.
My Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Bill, which I am pleased to say is now going to become an Act, will give people in every area an opportunity to go to their local council and say, “Where is your register? I want to put my name down as someone who wants to acquire a serviced plot.” The council will have a statutory obligation to keep a register of such people and to have regard to it when drawing up its housing plans, whether for planning and housing, for regeneration or for the disposal of land. In visits overseas, I have seen that such space can also encompass housing for affordable rent through housing co-operatives as well as housing for private purchase. The point about serviced plots is key. This goes back to what I was saying about infrastructure and about removing the blockages to further development. This is about funding the essential infrastructure that is needed before further development can take place.
In the Government’s Budget last year, they announced the provision of £150 million towards serviced plots, and I interpret the creation of 20 housing zones that was announced yesterday as a further step in the right direction towards making the providing of the necessary infrastructure much easier. If a customer wants to come into the marketplace and take advantage of the opportunity to build a house that meets their own needs, the blockages that they meet can prove terminal. They might be trying to find a site, to acquire a piece of land or to obtain the necessary finance, for example. They might be told by the local authority to do an archaeological survey that they did not realise they would need, or a service supplier might tell them that the cost of supplying electricity or water, say, to the site would be prohibitive.
Going back to what Mr Blakeway, the deputy mayor of London, has said about planning certainty, removing all those blockages would create a focused environment in which we know that houses would be built. Housing zones are part of the way to make that happen. The underlying infrastructure being funded by the Government would create the possibility for much more housing being developed more quickly. There is also the possibility of recouping some of that cost through the tax revenues, including council tax revenues, that would flow once the housing was in place.
We need a housing market that works. We need to make the supply work in a way that it is currently not doing. We need to unlock the power of potential customers who do not yet have an opportunity to turn their latent demand into something real. The National Custom and Self-build Association commissioned Ipsos MORI to carry out a survey, which found that 1 million people would like to build their own dwelling or get someone to build it for them in the next 12 months, and that 7 million people would like to do that at some point in their lives. I hope that this Budget will be the harbinger of an important turn of direction towards emphasising the importance of getting underlying infrastructure in place so that the energy and vision of our own people can be deployed in providing the housing that we need.
Andrea Leadsom
That is an extremely interesting question and the hon. Gentleman may well want to follow it up as the representative for his constituency. It is not something that I can answer at the Dispatch Box.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) welcomed the review of business rates and pointed out their importance, particularly for businesses in her constituency that are competing with online companies. She also pointed out the need for urgent action on superfast broadband for business, and welcomed the measures in the Budget.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) welcomed the penny off a pint and the freeze in fuel duty, but said that the Chancellor ignored the NHS. In truth, the Government have chosen to protect the NHS through this tough period and have now committed to much greater support for mentally ill people. I would dearly love to hear the Opposition just once welcome this vital investment, which will do so much to help people struggling with poor mental health, rather than just ignoring it. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) told us about the choices that his grandmother gave us all—either earn more or spend less when in difficulty—and I am delighted to hear she would have been pleased with the Budget. I congratulate him on his long-standing support for small and medium-sized businesses and put on the record how much I have enjoyed being his constituency neighbour in the lovely country of Northamptonshire.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) talked about the problem of the last bank in town, which I am very sympathetic to, but he might be reassured to know that I have held round tables, including with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, talking to banks about the need for smart ATMs that take in, as well as give out, cash and discussing improvements to post offices, including longer hours and upgrading security at counters for business banking, and we hope there will be a protocol for bank closures in the future. I am happy to talk to him separately about the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), in his encore speech as a retiring Member, warmly supported the Budget and gave a considered assessment of the measures in it. It was an excellent swansong, and I wish him a successful and peaceful retirement.
Mr Bacon
Before my hon. Friend moves on entirely from the point about bank closures, will she accept that it is not just about protocol but about sharing resources, possibly between commercial banks and institutions such as the Post Office, so that instead of closures we have facilities that work for local people in very rural areas such as South Norfolk?
Andrea Leadsom
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend and assure him that that is precisely the point that the Secretary of State and I have been taking up with the banks.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) might recall that I had the privilege of standing as a candidate in 2005 for Knowsley South against Eddie O’Hara. I am delighted that he welcomed the Help to Buy ISA and urge him to promote it to his local first-time buyers. It will be flexible for those on low incomes and will give a Government contribution of up to £3,000 towards a deposit for a new home.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Richard Bacon Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Barclay
Of course that is not wrong. I said that the Bill is welcome, and that it is a positive response to the commission’s report. The focus on leverage and liquidity is absolutely right, and that is why I pay tribute to the work of central bankers and regulators. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my remarks. The danger is that we focus on the past and do not anticipate the future. There is a need for flexibility, and for that the Bill needs to tackle culture. The paradox is that individuals in banks are motivated by big bonuses, which drive their behaviour, yet when things go wrong, we do not have their corollary, which is big fines against individuals. That might be the sort of thing to grab people’s attention when they become aware of issues.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) is back in his place, because he missed addressing that point in his remarks—it is a shame he would not take interventions from me. Under his Government, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, probably the most-debated Act for many years, created a rulebook of more than 6,000 pages. He spoke about the need for more regulation and suggested that Conservative Members had failed because of the lack of regulation, yet we had 6,000 pages of it. The issue was that the regulation was not enforced.
It is even worse than that, because the hon. Gentleman actually allowed a regulatory regime that included things such as guaranteed bonuses. Not only would somebody get a bonus if they performed well, but they got a guaranteed bonus even when the bank collapsed. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, contractually the banks were signed up to guaranteed bonuses, so they were still doling out money under the enhanced regulatory regime to which he referred—true socialism in action.
It gets worse. There was a fines system that incentivised banks to profit from the wrongdoing of other banks. When a bank was subject to a regulatory fine, the money went not to the taxpayer in the form of funding good works or to customers of the bank affected, but to the other banks in the form of lower levies to the regulator. When a bank committed a wrongdoing, therefore, other banks in the sector profited. This is the regulatory regime on which we are now being lectured.
Let me give another example on structure: the collapse of RBS. After 10 months of the brightest minds in our Treasury—I am sure they are the brightest minds—looking at this issue, they still could not rely on the books. So untrustworthy was RBS’s auditing that the permanent secretary to the Treasury had to send for a letter of direction from the Chancellor saying, “I can’t rely on the books. It’s such a mess, Chancellor, you’ll have to give me a letter of direction.” We will not take any lectures from the Opposition, therefore, about their regulatory regime or the mess in which it has left our constituents, who are the ones footing the bill.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend, who, unlike many in the House—particularly in the Opposition, but also, I fear, on the Government Benches—as a former financial regulator actually knows what he is talking about, which is a dangerous thing here. In September 2007, when Northern Rock collapsed, the Treasury did not even know if it had the power to take it over, which was something of an indictment of thousands and thousands of pages of regulation. Does he agree that it might not be a coincidence that John Pierpont Morgan and Nathaniel Rothschild, the founders of two of the most successful banks in the 19th century—JP Morgan and NM Rothschild —had a considerable personal interest and stake at risk in those institutions if things went wrong?
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is right because, as I know from my time in banking, people in banks are usually aware of the problems, but there is a perverse incentive—a short-termism—that says, “If the rewards are delivered short term, but the risk is unlikely to crystallise”—
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One-size-fits-all rules often capture the good but are insufficiently robust to deter the bad. Yes, the Bill is welcome and takes constructive steps forward, but we also need to see more measures from the Treasury on individual fines.
Mr Bacon
There are some people here who are not interested in the debate, but they can go away if they want to. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; I have now caught up with those on the Labour Front Bench in terms of interventions.
I heard from 27 employees of Lloyds bank who were caught by the temporary ban on bonuses. Some of them were getting bonuses of only £2,000, so that was quite unfair. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) might have suggested that senior bankers and bank directors should be required to post personal bonds. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would go some way towards dealing with the problem?
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is right. We have to introduce into the system a position in which those at the top who are getting the biggest rewards also face the biggest risks. Some colleagues have talked about criminal sanctions, but the burden of proof is such that it is often difficult for the prosecuting authorities to get sufficient evidence to make it an effective tool. I am not against that, but it is often not an effective tool in practice. We need to ask how we can get to a situation where we do not catch those on £2,000 bonuses and those who have done no wrong, and do not set in place a whole load of rules that fetter innovation or deter business, but where we do create a stick and a deterrent for those who have abused the system and know they are still on the hook for significant financial loss. Those are the people most motivated by big fines in the first place; we should have a correlation between the bonuses and the fines.
In conclusion, the Bill is constructive and welcome, but we need to hear much more from Treasury colleagues about individual accountability, not just structures.
Corporate Tax Avoidance
Richard Bacon Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales
I appreciate that intervention, because I know that the hon. Gentleman has great experience in this area. He goes further than I was proposing, but it is certainly a good idea.
Transparency and honesty are important. As we have seen recently with Starbucks, transparency can lead to consumer power influencing company behaviour. I hope that we will see more of that. Retail, business or government consumers who do not like the ethics or practices of a company do not have to deal with them, except perhaps in cases involving utilities.
HMRC must also be more transparent. Although it steadfastly claims that it does not do deals, Vodafone’s finance director told the City that its deal was worth £500 million a year. One lesson from that and other cases is that no high-level discussions with companies should take place without being minuted, and those minutes must be freely available to tax commissioners and the National Audit Office. The transparency must work both ways; we cannot go on operating through tinted windows.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend not regard it as extraordinary that in the negotiations between HMRC and Goldman Sachs about some back payments that were due, no legal advisers were present and no minutes were taken?
Ian Swales
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invention. As fellow members of the Public Accounts Committee, he and I have looked in detail at that case. He is right that such arrangements should not be made.
The UK should take a look at its own role and its relationship with tax havens such as the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and so on, which the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has described as sunny places for shady people. UK citizens deserve a full explanation from the Government of why they support those places as tax havens and what net benefit they bring to the UK.
It is also urgent that work takes place at EU level to ensure that companies cannot exploit sweetheart tax deals in countries such as the Netherlands and Luxembourg, aided by the free movement of goods, people and capital. It is time properly to enforce the 1997 EU code of conduct on business taxation. I am especially pleased to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as that code was ratified under your chairmanship. It specifically highlights issues such as doing deals to give lower rates and tax incentives for activities that are isolated from the domestic economy of a given country. The OECD set up a forum on harmful tax practices at about the same time. Both initiatives highlighted the need for transparency. A race to the bottom helps nobody.
Next, the Government should consider disallowing some foreign interest payments for tax purposes. It is depressingly easy to move a chunk of capital to a low tax regime, then export all one’s profits via interest payments. Foreign interest should have to be specifically justified. When the loans were taken out, what was the purpose? Were they proportional to business need and are they now? Who is the lender? A related company deal needs particular scrutiny, especially as the capital may originally have been exported from the UK with no equivalent taxable interest coming back.
The Government should look at setting maximum royalty and management fees, and disallowing them as a deduction if they are disproportionate to profits. There should be an ability-to-pay test; such payments should not be allowed to wipe out UK profits, as we saw with Starbucks. The Government should work with international partners to disallow management fees and royalty, patent and copyright fees unless they go direct to the country where the relevant value was generated. Payments to tax havens could be automatically disallowed. When a company claims that rights have been sold to other countries, it needs to show that a full and fair price was paid. Of course, that would crystallise a big tax liability in the selling country. The United States would be especially enthusiastic about such a move, as it is one of the big losers from payments going to tax havens.
Because our tax systems are national, all movements of value across borders, including business transfers, need a price attached to them for tax purposes. The Government must also find a way to ensure that VAT is charged on all qualifying sales in the UK, whatever the country of origin. To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), we need much more specialist resource in HMRC. A department that brings in 100 times what it costs should not be treated like a normal cost centre; there must be many more invest-to-collect business cases to be made. Maximising our tax revenue is as much about enforcing the rules as about the rules themselves. In particular, a special unit is needed to look at everyone running an internet-based business selling to UK customers, starting with the biggest. It should look at where they are based, their business model and whether they abide by UK VAT and corporation tax rules. We need our rules and enforcement to be up to date with technological changes.
The tax system is way too complex; a whole industry has grown up to find creative ways to avoid tax. When will we see significant output and action from the Office of Tax Simplification? Surely we need radical ideas for cutting through the jungle of our tax system, not just the deletion of obscure, rarely used reliefs. Simplification is badly needed, yet we see even more complexity.
I talked earlier about consumer power. The UK Government are by far the biggest purchaser and grant-awarding body in this country. Is it right that Amazon can get more than £10 million of Government money for a new warehouse in Dunfermline when it is a Luxembourg-based retailer paying little corporation tax in this country, and apparently does not pay VAT on all its sales either? Is it right that Accenture, Capgemini and others win Government contracts when they are named as aggressive tax avoiders? Should HMRC itself have sold its buildings for leaseback to Mapeley, a Bermuda-based company? Is it not time that we recognised in financial assessments that most of the profits from private finance initiative and outsourcing contracts are now disappearing offshore?
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I commend my fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), on bringing forward this debate. I was interested in his exchange with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on having a set of general anti-avoidance rules. Her view was that it is best to have a set of principles, because principles are less easy to bend than rules. I am not quite sure that I agree; whenever I hear anyone talking about principles, I hear the voice of Oscar Wilde saying, “If you don’t like my principles, I have others.” I fear that if there were a general anti-avoidance principle, as long as it were justiciable, which it would be, it would just create more work for lawyers. I do not think that there is a simple way round this, other than simplicity. I shall come on to that in a minute.
I do not normally take too much notice of the handouts for these debates, but I thought I would take a look at today’s, just in case. I was struck by the words at the beginning, under “points to make”:
“Tax evasion is morally wrong as it means that law-abiding people face higher taxes to make up for the lost revenue.”
Right there, in the first sentence, is the confusion that is so widespread that the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance has almost disappeared—so much so that I wonder whether I was dreaming when I used to think that there was a clear division between the two. Of course, tax evasion is not just morally wrong; it is illegal. That is the central point. Tax avoidance is not illegal.
I shall quote from the National Audit Office report, “Tax avoidance: tackling marketed avoidance schemes”, which provides a handy definition. You drove through a lot of the legislation on this in the previous Administration, Madam Deputy Speaker, though you have probably forgotten much about this. The report says:
“HMRC’s working definition of tax avoidance is ‘using the tax law to get a tax advantage that Parliament never intended’. Unlike tax evasion which involves fraud or deliberate concealment, tax avoidance is not illegal. However, it often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax advantage.”
That gives rise to the question: how can it be that tax avoidance has grown so much, and how can it be that we have the distinct impression—the Treasury might try to deny it, but I believe that there is evidence for it—that there has been simultaneously a cosying-up to a large number of bigger corporate taxpayers, and tightening of terms applying to, and greater aggression from HMRC towards, small businesses in our constituencies?
The best example of cosying-up that I can think of is the deal with Goldman Sachs. Some years ago, a number of investment banks—around 22 of them—came up with a scheme for avoiding national insurance contributions by ensuring that many of their highly paid employees were technically employed by a company registered in the British Virgin Islands. It was a very contrived scheme, and HMRC challenged it. Indeed, 21 of the 22 investment banks involved caved in eventually and paid the money due. One did not, and that was Goldman Sachs, which continued to pursue its position for many years until, in October 2005, HMRC wrote it a letter, warning it that unless it played ball, it would eventually be liable for all the interest due on the back payments as well.
The case continued for many years, and in 2009 there was an important Court of Appeal judgment that was favourable to HMRC, which made it all the more surprising when HMRC did not pursue the matter more vigorously. It came out in the PAC’s hearing on the subject that the permanent secretary for tax—the head of HMRC—was unaware of the warning that HMRC had issued in a letter to Goldman Sachs in October 2005 until I told him about it. That rather makes one worry about whether HMRC has the right skills in the right places. Indeed, that was the central burden of the National Audit Office report, “Core skills at HM Revenue & Customs”, published on 2 December as HC 1595.
The report makes pretty grim reading. It makes it clear that
“HMRC does not yet have a strategic and systematic approach to its investment in skills”,
and because HMRC is so decentralised, it cannot ensure that there is alignment, at a high level, of investment in skills with its business priorities. To quote the report:
“As well as having limited information on its investment in skills, HMRC does not, at the level of the organisation as a whole, know its current skills gaps or gain an early warning of future skills gaps.”
The report continues:
“there is no clear line of sight from HMRC’s Executive Committee to business areas that would enable the Executive Committee to evaluate whether business areas are delivering expected business benefits from their investment in skills”,
and
“Problems are slow to be resolved. Many of the points in this report were raised by HMRC’s own reviews in 2008 and 2009, but HMRC has not made the changes needed.”
The report goes on; I could quote much more, but I am trying to be brief. The issues that we face to do with corporate tax avoidance are fundamentally to do with complexity. The reason we have had an increase in tax avoidance is that we have had an increase in complexity. The only cure for that is much greater simplicity.
I mentioned earlier that I have seen evidence of a tightening of the attitude of HMRC towards small business customers. Recently, a bookkeeper came to see me in my surgery; he does the accounts and tax returns for a variety of small businesses, from corner shops to companies with a £10 million or £15 million turnover—everything from small manufacturers to fish and chip shops. He came to see me because he was concerned about the change in HMRC’s behaviour; it was becoming more and more aggressive. He had clients who had had to lay people off in order to pay tax bills, and with whom HMRC was not making the time-to-pay arrangements that are certainly made available to some larger companies. Vodafone’s is a classic case: although it had £10 billion on its balance sheet, it was given five years to pay the tax liability resulting from the dispute to which the hon. Member for Redcar referred.
I do not think that the solution that we saw in the case of Starbucks, which gave evidence to the PAC, is the right one. Starbucks made the bizarre announcement that it would pay £10 million in corporation tax in each of the next two years, whether or not it made a profit. That is not the way forward. As for the idea that companies should pay corporation tax because the mob has turned on them, the spotlight is on them, there is public relations attention on them, and they think they have to make an announcement and do something, that is a bizarre way of arranging our tax affairs. The way to do it is for companies to obey the law.
Mr Frank Field
If Governments are inactive on this front, what action does the hon. Gentleman propose taxpayers should take, other than that mob action?
Mr Bacon
Governments should take notice when they see outside 100 Parliament street, the headquarters of HMRC, large crowds of riot police—there are photographs to that effect, which can easily be found on the web. When Governments see such a thing happening, they should sit up and take notice that the system is not working and that it is not fit for purpose. I understand the burden of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I understand why people are so angry and feel that they need to do something. There are many people, including those who have given their lives and those who have fought overseas on behalf of this country, who probably would have had better equipment if more tax revenue had been collected—if more of the tax revenue that should have been paid was paid.
It is not always a case of the tax not being due. If HMRC does not have the resources in the right places to check whether the tax is due or not, it may indeed be that corporations are acting illegally, that what they are doing is evasion and that they are getting away with it. That is why it is so important that HMRC is able to have the right management information at the top level so that it can align its investments in skills and in people with its business priorities in a way that currently, as is clear from the NAO study, it is unable to do.
I believe that the solution to all this must be much greater simplicity, and I mean radically greater simplicity. The time for tinkering is over. It was Einstein, I think, who famously once said that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and to expect different results. It is time that we got different results and we will get them only by taking different action.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) on securing this Back-Bench debate on corporate tax avoidance. It is an important subject that has been dangerously blurred by some of our colleagues. I want to say at the outset that I find myself far more concerned about the way in which Government spend our money than about how they collect it. If spending were controlled, or had been—I give the example of the last Labour Government—the collection problem would be vastly reduced. I believe that my Government have taken such sentiments to heart and we are actively reducing spending to aid our country in difficult economic times.
I certainly think the approach of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and others who have swallowed her line, misses two simple and quite fundamental points. First, the tax on shareholders is inseparable from company tax and is quite high. While companies are literally separate legal entities from their shareholders, they are in effect tax collection agencies for Governments to tax the profit stream which in effect belongs to their shareholders. That profit stream is not just taxed by the corporation tax payment on which all of this debate is focusing. In reality, the profit stream belongs to the shareholders and it is taxed not once by corporation tax, not twice by corporation tax and income tax, but three times, once as corporation tax, once as income tax on distribution, and finally with capital gains tax, or inheritance tax, on retentions as a proxy for the capital gain.
I have a sound mathematical example in my notes that might well lose some Opposition Members, so let me just outline that on £100 of pre-tax profit, with corporation tax and other taxes taken into account, the Government take £52.91 in tax paid. Some of this amount comes from income that can be deferred, but it is a tax that is ultimately not avoidable, other than perhaps by devices such as the trust of the right hon. Member for Barking for her shares in her family company, which one presumes is morally fine with the Opposition Members who have followed the debate so far and so must be okay. But that near £53 from £100 does not sound very low to me, especially given that the Government scrapped indexation relief on capital gains at a time when they are clearly targeting higher inflation. Perhaps more importantly though, what incentive is such a tax on profits to entrepreneurs? What encouragement do such figures give to those involved in setting up and driving forward young businesses, or those entrepreneurs thinking of taking that big first step into the world of small business and working for themselves?
Secondly, is it wrong for companies to avoid tax? Janan Ganesh in the Financial Times has written well on this particular issue, but I would draw hon. Members’ attention to one of his main and salient points for this debate with which I agree. The Starbucks precedent—and by association, one might say, any future pressure on Google, Amazon, and historically some of the mobile phone companies and indeed perhaps most notoriously the Guardian newspaper group—is a dangerous one. Tax should be a matter of law not moral persuasion. If any Government want Starbucks or any other corporation to pay more tax, let them pass an appropriate piece of legislation. Otherwise tax payment will become a matter of public image and impact, and I imagine that very little tax will be paid by the maker of the polystyrene cups, which we may never have heard of. Do we really want to travel down “The X Factor” road of choosing something, indeed policy setting in this country, making important decisions based on fickle public opinion on the hoof?
Mr Bacon
While my hon. Friend is right that it should be a matter for law, not for moral persuasion, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ request of the Government, in the consultation that took place last year, that they should do more to clarify what constitutes unacceptable tax avoidance versus what constitutes acceptable tax planning, places a burden on the Government to be clearer about their own intentions.
Karl MᶜCartney
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I agree with him. I will mention PricewaterhouseCoopers shortly.
The objective of business, any business, is not ostensibly to do good or to pursue corporate social responsibility; it is to do business and make money for the owners and/or shareholders. Directors of all small, medium, large and multinational companies have a fiduciary responsibility to maximise gains for that company’s owners, including minimising the tax paid. Any diversion of company management from that objective is wrong as a matter of law and dangerous as we move forward in the 21st century.
John Christensen of the campaign group Tax Justice Network made a true claim when he said that the figures highlight that tax avoidance by large businesses has become a “much bigger issue” over the past 10 years because of the “enhanced relationship” policy put in place. That policy was put in place by the then Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his then Chancellor and ultimately successor as Labour Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).
The problem is perhaps exacerbated in that we have a very complicated tax system. The previous Labour Government did nothing to uncomplicate matters. In fact, they set up a whole new industry making it more complex. What we need as a country, and for us to remain an economic powerhouse on the world stage, is much greater tax simplicity and lower tax rates.
I am pleased that the Government are consulting on a general anti-abuse rule, the GAAR, targeted at artificial and abusive tax avoidance schemes, with a view to bringing forward legislation later this year. Echoing my earlier statement, Mary Monfries, head of tax policy and regulation at PricewaterhouseCoopers, has also been quoted in the media saying with regard to our tax system that “simplicity is key”. She described complexity as a
“key problem with the current tax model”,
adding that the GAAR should
“help to act as a disincentive”
against
“abusive, extreme tax avoidance arrangements”.
But I also believe that some of my colleagues are being disingenuous with the great British public in that the vast majority of multinationals mentioned are not breaking any laws and, as the Government make the law, it is their own and our fault if companies use the rules in place to minimise their tax. Our tax legislation is huge and very complex, so any shortcomings are down to Government failure to create and implement the right tax framework.
The multinational aspects of tax collection and avoidance can be solved only by international bodies working together. That will not be easy for any of my ministerial colleagues to achieve I am sure, but as for any avoidance by UK companies, we do not perhaps need this debate now, as the GAAR legislation will, we trust, come into force during the next tax year. Surely that is the mechanism to stop so-called unacceptable tax avoidance that the hon. Member for Redcar seeks to debate this evening. Many private sector individuals in business may view this debate and other pronouncements by some hon. Members as politicians just diverting public opinion away from their own shortcomings by encouraging media interest in the tax avoidance issue. As politicians we organise the rules and therefore as long as what the companies do is legal, morality surely does not come into it much. Google, The Guardian, Amazon and others are perhaps insulated in that they have little direct competition in the services they provide, so no incentive to make voluntary tax payments as they have avoided such sizeable payments for a number of years. But Starbucks is now paying reportedly quite sizeable sums of voluntary tax, not for moral reasons but to protect its brand and customer loyalty—that is, to protect its profits.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I pay tribute to the work of the Public Accounts Committee, particularly its questioning of executives from Starbucks, Google and Amazon on 12 November. I will focus on just one of those companies: Amazon.
I preface my remarks by paying tribute to the brilliant service that Amazon provides. It has made buying books far simpler and cheaper for millions of consumers, myself included. The speed of delivery and its innovative logistics make it a company about which there is a huge amount to admire. The question, though, is: which company? The way in which Amazon is structured means that, when I buy a book from Amazon, I am in fact buying it from Amazon EU SARL, a Luxemburg company. The profit on the sale of a book belongs to this Luxemburg company, notwithstanding the fact that Amazon owns no warehouses in Luxemburg and that the book, if it is in English, will have been sent from one of Amazon’s eight warehouses in the UK. Amazon.co.uk Ltd, a UK company, is just the service company for the Luxembourg company, fulfilling a customer’s order on behalf of Amazon EU SARL. Therefore, although Amazon’s sales in the UK are in the billions of pounds, the sales income of the UK company is just £207 million.
The technical thing that the tax planners at Amazon are keen to avoid is creating what the tax authorities call a permanent establishment of the Luxembourg company in the UK. If the UK tax authorities perceive there to be such a permanent establishment, all the income of the Luxembourg company that relates to that permanent establishment would be taxable in the UK. When I drive up the M1 and see the huge Amazon buildings that package and dispatch millions of books a year, I cannot help thinking that they look pretty permanent, but technically they are not. There will have been great effort and attention to the detail of the documentation to ensure that the warehouses are the operation of the UK service company and that all Amazon’s property and activity in the UK relate to that service and not to the activities of the Luxembourg company.
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Everyone knows that this structure is a legal fiction. All the real economic activity for the transaction of my book purchase takes place in the UK. Andrew Cecil, the director of public policy at Amazon, in his evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, said that Amazon.co.uk is the trading name of the Luxembourg company. Therefore, although it sounds as though I am buying my book from the UK company, in fact I am not. However, according to the e-mail that I received in December confirming a book order that I made, if I want further details on my statutory rights, I should contact Amazon.co.uk customer services at 2 to 4 Waverly Gate, Edinburgh. The trading name for the Luxembourg company therefore has premises in Edinburgh. Does that not sound like a permanent establishment of the Luxembourg company?
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Bacon Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Has the Chief Secretary had a chance to look at the report by the National Self Build Association, “Lessons from International Self Build Housing Practices”, and does he agree that if we were to do more to help self-builders, we could help solve many of our housing problems, as well as increase local council tax revenue and stamp duty for the Treasury?
Danny Alexander
I have not had a chance to study that report, but, in the light of my hon. Friend’s question, I certainly will. He will know that the new national planning policy framework specifically encourages self-build, and many of the planning system reforms the coalition Government have pushed through will help self-builders to achieve their aspirations.
Tax Avoidance (Public Servants)
Richard Bacon Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
May I say how much I welcome the Chief Secretary’s urgent review? There has been too much of this going on; there was certainly a similar case involving the chief operating officer of the Rural Payments Agency, who was appointed in an interim way under the previous Government, which should not have happened. May I invite the Chief Secretary, in the spirit of the coalition, to say whether he agrees with the former leader of the Conservative party, Michael Howard, who is now in another place, when he said:
“Special rules for special…groups breed anger and division. They blur the distinction between right and wrong. And they give the impression that some people are above the law”?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for the action I have taken. I was not aware of the example he gave in relation to the Rural Payments Agency. Of course, if other such cases still exist in other parts of Government, that is something the review I have instituted will bring out. I do agree with the statement the hon. Gentleman read out, which is why the Government have taken a series of strong steps—much greater steps, frankly, than the previous Government—to deal with tax avoidance and make sure that everyone pays their proper amount of tax.
Private Finance Initiative
Richard Bacon Excerpts(13 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on his tremendous campaign. It has been a marvellous example of leadership, which is built on his expertise, and we are all in his debt.
I have been watching the private finance initiative from my position on the Public Accounts Committee for many years. I always had a sneaky suspicion about it, without being able to put my finger on what that was, until I met an investment banker at a private event in 2003. He was a securitisation expert and had been involved in many PFI projects. He said: “I like the PFI. It’s a good source of income and is good for the business, but as a taxpayer it really pisses me off.” That rather woke me up. This was not a trade unionist complaining about costs being cut by worsening the terms and conditions of his members; it was a City fat cat getting fatter on the proceeds.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I used to get invited to conferences on the PFI, when it was in its earlier heyday under new Labour. At those events, I met a group of people whom one can only really describe as theologians for the PFI. Rather like some Marxists, or even some Roman Catholics, there was no question to which they would not have an answer. It was a sort of self-containing system, at the root of which was the idea that the PFI was a competitive bidding process and that there was no possibility of its not being all sorted out and being in the best possible interests of clients—the public authorities involved. After all, it was a competitive, open-market process in which anyone could bid, and certain things would already be in the price. It was almost as if they were talking about the market for foreign exchange, or another perfect market. We know, of course, that because of the huge costs involved in bidding for a large project, the PFI has far more of the characteristics of an oligopoly. The Royal Institute of British Architects estimated, many years ago, that the cost of bidding for a PFI hospital was more than £11 million—probably significantly higher now. All those costs end up getting passed on to the client.
The other thing that these theologians would suggest was that it would not be possible for anything to go wrong, because it would not be possible to have an ill-informed or inexperienced client. There would be no question of there not being the right experience on the client side, or the right capacity or resources to manage a project after a contract had been signed. It was as if all must be for the best in the best of all possible worlds, because it could not be any other way. I continued, however, to be suspicious, and I continued to go to the conferences, becoming ruder and ruder until, I am pleased to say, they stopped inviting me. Customers paid £1,000 to attend and all I got out of it was a slap in the face with a wet haddock and a one-way ticket to Great Yarmouth, so I am glad that I am no longer invited.
I must congratulate the National Audit Office on something that recently opened my eyes. The NAO has produced more than 60 reports on the PFI in the past decade, and I have been pleading with it for years to do more synthesis. We have had analysis after analysis after analysis, and project after project, and in the office’s recent report, published in late April, there is more synthesis of some PFI issues. I had a light-bulb moment when I read on page 7 of the report, in a section about the skills, capacity and experience used in negotiating
“high margins on the changes in asset usage which are likely to occur over a long contract.”
I realised that the providers know full well that it is not possible to write a contract that is flexible enough to last for 25 to 30 years, and so they do two things. One is that they insure themselves by tying down every conceivable cost that might arise—every conceivable risk with its attached price. That process is enormously expensive, and it is reflected in the figure of £11 million that the Royal Institute of British Architects came up with. Although it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire has said, that in rare instances people have lost a packet on projects, such as Jarvis, the National Physical Laboratory and the Joint Services Command and Staff College in Shrivenham—Laing had to sell its construction business after that—the contractors have a lot of people involved, and they do it well, insuring themselves on the downside pretty effectively, to ensure that they make money whatever happens.
The other light-bulb moment in my reading of the NAO report was when I came to:
“as major contractors seek to develop their income from the project”.
I thought to myself, “Hang on a minute. How do you develop your income from the contract? Okay, you might index the contract to protect yourself from inflation, but basically you have a contract and you provide services. It is predictable, and that is why you know what you’ll get going forward.” No. They know full well when they sign up that it is not possible for the public authority, particularly those in education and health, to write a contract that is flexible enough to last for 25 to 35 years. They ensure that all their risks are covered and then develop their income from the contract over time, as changes occur. One can also see a sudden shift. Just as the flagship Norfolk and Norwich hospital in my constituency was finished, the mood music suddenly changed towards much more primary, locally based care.
The contractors also do fancy financial engineering. The Norfolk and Norwich hospital was perhaps the locus classicus of that. The contractors added about £100 million in extra debt to the contract at the time of refinancing, thus accelerating their return from the project. The NAO produced a report specifically on that hospital, which stated that not only was the repayment period for the hospital extended from 34 years to 39 years—it is hard to see how that was in the interests of taxpayers—but the rate of return for the investors was accelerated from 18.9% to more than 60%, more than tripling it. If they can get all their money out that quickly, it means that it is not nearly as important, and there is not nearly the same incentive, to carry on managing the contract in the same way as before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire made another important point when he said that we should not kid ourselves that it has all been plain sailing in the conventional procurement world. He has mentioned the British Library. One might also mention the Scottish Parliament and the Jubilee line extension. I was told that the cost overrun for the windows of Portcullis House—which, again, was a conventional procurement that the Public Accounts Committee looked at when it first opened years ago—was so huge that it would have been cheaper to have clad the exterior of Portcullis House with BMW 7 series cars. We should not be under any illusion that the conventional method has worked as well as it should.
The attempt to find a way to get projects delivered on budget, on time had a certain merit. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to point out that the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) took this and ran with it. I talked to Lord Lamont, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a dinner a couple of years ago. He said that he had asked the hon. Member for Coventry North West before the 1997 election, “How on earth are you going to finance all these grand promises in your manifesto?” He replied, “Oh, it’s simple—we’ll take your idea of the PFI and run with it.” Lord Lamont said, “But the rules won’t let you,” to which the hon. Member for Coventry North West replied, “Oh, we’ll ignore your stupid rules.” He was very candid about it, in fairness to him.
One of the things that I have regretted about the past few years of the PFI is that, in areas such as health and education, where it would have been fairly easy to do this, the Government did not insist on developing, at the same time, identical or nearly identical clusters and baskets of projects, so that we would then have had a proper way of comparing, over a period of years—three, five, seven and 12 years out—what had actually proved to be greater value for money.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend also aware that the issue extends to the emergency services? Nottinghamshire police find themselves in a situation whereby their vehicle fleet is PFI-ed, and it costs hundreds of pounds just to repair a puncture.
Mr Bacon
Yes, and of course, we cannot blame the private sector for protecting its downside and ensuring that it makes money rather than loses it. One of the most extraordinary things about all this is the naivety of many of the people in the civil service who have negotiated these projects over the years. They do not seem to understand that the private sector players are profit maximisers. If they have a chance to make money, they will, and if they have a chance to make more money, they will. A certain lack of commercial nous and capacity on the part of the public sector has coloured all this.
Turning to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire on steps to improve data, one of the things that have shocked me throughout is the difficulty in getting a view from 100,000 feet of what is going on. I have spent years on the PAC trying to get answers out of the Treasury and other authorities about what is going on, and only very recently has anything started to emerge that looks like a coherent picture. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to think about a variety of different approaches to financing infrastructure. We need to make the PFI compete for business, if we are to use it at all in the future.
There is a paradox in relation to future proposals. The NAO report refers to the fact that there is a pipeline of £200 billion-worth of transport and energy infrastructure projects, and it is precisely for those sorts of enormous, long-term projects that a PFI-type structure might have more attractions to it. However, we have to be able to break down the different components. There is often absolutely no need to ascribe to the entire 35-year period of a project the risks that, in truth, only apply for the first few years, yet that is what many PFI lawyers have been able to get away with in many cases.
My hon. Friend’s campaign for a rebate is fascinating and has certainly caught the attention of the PFI industry. He has led the way on this. It is a remarkable testament to the fact that people in the industry know that things have been going wrong that so many of them have been prepared to co-operate. Interestingly, at the PAC hearing on the NAO report the other day, one of the witnesses, Graham Beazley-Long, from Innisfree, was asked whether it would be reasonable for equity gains to be shared with the taxpayer. He was perfectly prepared to discuss the matter. He said that the Treasury and Infrastructure UK
“would have a view on whether that pushed up the costs of capital”.
In other words, it was all just a negotiation and a certain return would be demanded by investors, and if the taxpayer wanted to pay that up in advance, they could get it back again. There is probably an element of truth in that, but my sense over the years is that the PFI industry, out of which a large number of people have made a great deal of money, has not been made to compete hard enough. There are a number of ways in which they could do that. We should have some conventional clusters that give us, as taxpayers, the ability to compare over the long term, and we should be much more innovative, as my hon. Friend has suggested—I hope that we hear more about his proposal for a national asset trust fund—in securing alternative methods for infrastructure finance, so that the PFI industry knows that it is not the only game in town.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak as another member of the Public Accounts Committee, which lays claim to having had a number of debates about the PFI, as has the Treasury Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this interesting and important debate about the PFI, which has been a key part of investment in this country for more than a decade, and how we make the way in which we invest in our infrastructure as a country work. I have a lot of sympathy with his concerns about whether the contracts have been done to the best of their availability and what we can do to improve them. There have been a number of debates and efforts to improve them, and I welcome the fact that he is saying that there is mixed picture on the PFI in terms of where it has delivered and that perhaps we can learn from where it has not delivered.
I want to set out some of my concerns about the hon. Gentleman’s proposals for the future. What really matters, given that a record 61 projects are currently being negotiated under the PFI, is how we can learn from what has happened. That has certainly been one of our key messages on the PAC, and I am sure that my fellow Committee members agree that we need to look at what we can learn and where we can make progress. One of the things that has surprised us on the PAC, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has mentioned, is the way in which negotiations on the PFI have taken place and the revelation from one of the major PFI companies that it has not been talking to the Government about the possibility of a rebate, which is an issue that the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire has raised, or about where contracts might be renegotiated.
Mr Metter from the industry used the colourful phrase that he would not ask his investors to take a haircut, by which he meant that he did not feel that it was possible to look at a voluntary scheme. I would be interested to hear more from the hon. Gentleman about his negotiations with other contractors and whether he thinks there is more interest in some kind of voluntary scheme.
We all recognise that it is difficult to ask the private sector to renegotiate a contract that it has signed up to in good faith. That therefore calls into question some of the ways in which we might deal with some of the problems with PFI, particularly the way in which the initial decision to move to PFI was made, which is something that I want to address. We must also consider what it would mean if those contracts were renegotiated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is a real concern that, if any contract is renegotiated, especially if capital parts of a project have been completed, it is services that will actually get renegotiated. Many of us are concerned that the renegotiation of services could mean fewer services, particularly in public institutions such as hospitals. Renegotiating services could have a negative impact on many of our constituents.
More fundamentally, on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about PFI, I hope that I can convince him that, rather than pursue a voluntary rebate—as I have said, it has transpired from our discussions with the industry that that is not what the Treasury has been doing and that the industry is not aware of such conversations—we should look at the tax status of these companies. I am sorry that he was not able to sit through the second half of our hearing, where we heard some frankly shocking evidence from Treasury officials about their approach to the situation. The issue is of particular importance to the PFI, because when a decision to go to the PFI is made, one of the value-for-money constructs is an assessment of the amount of tax that will be returned to the Exchequer through working with a private company in the UK over the course of the contract. It is set out clearly in the Green Book that the Government make an assessment not of the specific company’s tax take, but of the general tax take that can be expected from working with the private sector in the UK in order to build a project.
Stella Creasy
One of the genuine delights about serving on the Public Accounts Committee with the hon. Gentleman is that he has such a wealth of knowledge and anecdotes that clearly illustrate the challenges that we are dealing with. He took part in the Committee’s session, so he will know that I have grave concerns that moving assets overseas to offshore tax havens has substantial consequences for our assessment of the value for money of PFIs. When the decision to go for a PFI project is taken, an assessment is made of the tax that we will get in return, but there is widespread evidence that many companies then move their assets overseas to offshore tax havens. In fact, the Treasury Committee took evidence showing that 91 PFI projects were owned by secondary market infrastructure funds, so we are losing money. One of the best examples of that problem is a body set up by HSBC. The HSBC Infrastructure Company Ltd, which manages a number of hospitals in this country, has made £38 million in profit from 33 PFI schemes, but it has paid just £100,000 in tax in the UK in the past six months.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be operating under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. It is a great thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) has done in securing this very important debate, because he has raised a number of issues that have been challenged or discussed and, often, supported in useful ways.
The idea of securing a rebate is a good one. I know that the Treasury, in the form of Lord Sassoon, the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, is busily doing just that—he is attempting to negotiate a rebate. I am not sure how well the negotiation is going, but it is clearly under way. So the concept of making savings, with of course the proviso that standards and services are not threatened, is well established. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire is absolutely right to push this issue further up the agenda. I salute that.
There is a question about off-balance sheet expenditure. It is right that that issue should be carefully considered. In the context of the green investment bank, we have already done that. The funding for that is now measured to about £3 billion. When our deficit is going down, that bank will be able to raise more capital. There is the same sort of issue, although obviously better controlled by the present Government than the previous one, in connection with the PFI.
I want you to cast your mind back to the time before PFIs got started in this country. Can you remember those schools that were designed poorly, built badly and maintained with no attention to longevity? I have buildings in my constituency that could have been much better designed and of much better quality. Indeed, a building that was literally knocked up in 1956—frankly, it was a disgrace—was recently knocked down. It was put up by a local authority as a technical college, and I could see when I first arrived in Stroud that it should have been knocked down years before. We must remember that PFI schemes have improved the quality of buildings, and in many cases that has improved the quality of services.
Mr Bacon
If my hon. Friend were to visit St Thomas Aquinas grammar school and Wellington college in Belfast, he might disagree. Wellington college was built under the PFI, and halfway through negotiations on what should have been a quality building the contractors suddenly said, “Sorry, these are off. Here is your L-shaped school.” St Thomas Aquinas school was procured conventionally. The schools were the same size, the same capital was available for both, and they had the same number of pupils and were of the same socio-economic background, but St Thomas Aquinas school ended up a much better quality school. I have spent a lot of time in both schools and have seen the difference for myself.
Neil Carmichael
I thank my hon. Friend for making a good point; I shall answer it later in some detail.
I turn next to the history of the PFI. It goes back much further than 1992. The United States has been using PFI schemes for decades because it wanted private money to be used to provide public utilities, roads and so on. The PFI has a history in the US, in many parts of Europe and in most regions of the world. We have plenty of experience of it. There is much activity in that sector that we can draw upon in order to improve the way in which it works. That is the key point.
PFI schemes have recently become far too complicated. As was pointed out earlier, in many of the original schemes things were simply designed, built and then maintained. More recently, however, we have been throwing in services and all sorts of extras. As a result, the process has become complicated; indeed, many of us have used that word today. That is largely because we have confused the original concept of the PFI by adding on services and so on. There is nothing wrong with that, but it brings me to the fact that we must get the procurement systems right. To do that, we must specify much more clearly what is wanted. Local authorities have to learn to do that, as must the health service; it is a question of commissioning. My hon. Friend, who represents a beautiful Cornish seat—it is in Cornwall, is it not?
Neil Carmichael
Thank you for being so understanding, Mrs Main. This is such a complex subject that you have to marshal your thoughts clearly.
The discussion of procurement leads me to the next big issue—the competitiveness of the tendering process. One of the difficulties is that there are not often enough bidders. That is not surprising, because the bidding costs are sometimes far too high. We therefore need to think about the competitive process and the bidding issue together. I believe that the answer is to make the contractual arrangements and the contracts simpler and more adaptable. You cannot alter a system as complicated as this by looking at one part of it and making some changes, because that will have consequences further down the line, but I think that bidding costs are indeed too high, largely because contracts are too rigid and too few organisations are looking into that as a mechanism.
One or two Members have mentioned income streams. That is a really good point. Most schemes with strong income streams have worked rather well. Those with no proper measure of income or service have not worked so well. We need to divide the concept of the private finance initiative into those schemes with strong and reliable income streams and those mainly to do with service and operation. The difficulty is that we apply the strict definition of the private finance initiative to virtually everything, when we have a much more flexible phrase—public-private partnership. That is what we should be thinking about, so that we do not get ourselves tied up in knots.
Mr Bacon
I have tried to resist intervening on my hon. Friend to ask him whether he realises that he is talking unutterable rubbish. First, if you have more specifying, you are obviously going to increase the costs hugely. As for public-private partnerships, I would encourage him to look at the London Underground PPP, where the finance costs were £500 million higher because of the complexity of the scheme, and because the Chancellor of the day detested Ken Livingstone, the professional fees added another £500 million. You—one, Mrs Main—must be careful to distinguish between the different facets. My hon. Friend said that clinical operations cost more in some hospitals than others. Of course he is right, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the PFI.
Neil Carmichael
Thank you very much. [Laughter.] You know, it is always great when someone makes a point in opposition that proves the point that is being made. If you keep changing the specifications, you will increase the complexity, making it harder for those who are procuring to understand, and the bidding process just goes awry. The real problem is that various organisations have not specified clearly enough and have not stuck to the specifications as first announced. Therefore, there have been far too many changes, sometimes as late as just before contract signing. That is what I am getting at. It is totally unacceptable. It wastes huge amounts of money—millions of pounds—and it puts off other bidders because, of course, they think to themselves, “Where are we in this? It’s a movable feast.” That is not what we want. We need to bolt it down, and that is why I emphasised the importance of specification. It is a really important point, and my hon. Friend has just proved it. If you keep changing the specification, you will always end up having a problem with a contract of any description. That is where I stand on that issue.
Finally, I want to mention the ridiculous business about light bulbs, car parking at hospitals and so on—the sort of things that we must get away from. That is really important. It is what the Treasury and indeed any organisation involved in such a situation should be moving away from. It is not acceptable; it causes a huge number of problems. It is nonsense to argue that an income stream for a hospital will be the car park for the patients who turn up to it. That needs to be stated. We need to get a grip on what the hospital is actually for and apply the logic of the contract to that. That is the answer to the second point made by my hon. Friend.
In summary, PFI has a role to play, but we must be imaginative about making sure that it works better. If we are going to be spending more than £200 billion on our infrastructure alone in the next decade or so, we will have to appeal more effectively to the private sector to dip into its pocket. Properly modified, PFI can do that. That does not mean that we should not be looking at rebates, and it does not mean that we should not be concerned about what is on or off the balance sheet and so on. It does mean that we must apply value for money on the scheme and ensure that it works for those who need it.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) wants to speak, so I shall try to limit my speech to half the time remaining.
In this debate and as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have heard about many of the things that have gone wrong in PFI, but I want to focus not on the past but on the future. I shall do so by discussing three areas: first, contract design, because 61 PFIs are being planned; secondly, contract management, because there is a big disparity between private sector and public sector expertise, and I do not get a sense that it is being addressed, so it will continue to lead to poor value for money; and thirdly, if time allows I would like to touch on the secondary market, in particular the greater role that insurers and pension funds could play in certain elements of PFI and the regulatory task force that the Treasury has set up. It will be interesting to see how that will interplay and report back to the House.
First, on contract design, my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) mentioned bundling. We had rather disturbing evidence from a Treasury official at the PAC last week, who suggested that bundling remained necessary because without it the design and construction would not take on board maintenance costs in future. I suggest that they can be decoupled. It is possible to design and put out to tender in such a way that the construction risk is assumed through the PFI if required, by buying in management expertise from the private sector. However, the tail, where there is certainty of revenue, which is particularly attractive to other forms of finance companies, can be decoupled. That will also avoid some of the complexity of contracts, which is where the opaque pricing structures often lie and the legal costs come in. I would welcome clarity on the extent to which the 61 pending PFIs will be bundled.
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is helpful for the Minister to look at that example as a benchmark.
Secondly, although I am conscious of time, I want to cover the public sector comparator. Hon. Members have touched on the fact that it has often been flawed, because the PFI was a way of taking deals off the balance sheet and it was the only show in town, but there have been other imperatives. There was a regulatory imperative—not to mention, with a lot of marginal seats in the north-west, a political imperative—to go ahead with the Manchester incinerator, even though it was, at 350 base points, over and above the 300 threshold that the Treasury had at the time. Likewise, there was a defence imperative to go ahead with the air tanker contract, which was appalling value. The existing fleet was falling apart and there was no fall-back position, so there was a defence need for that contract to go ahead. It would be interesting to get from the Minister a sense of the extent to which guidance has changed to guard against some of those risks, and how we as a House get visibility of whether a viable fall-back position has been developed for some of those 61 contracts.
Thirdly, specifically on defence, the response in the Treasury minute of December 2010 is a little ambiguous. It says:
“The Government does not agree with the Committee’s conclusion…on the applicability of PFI to Defence, but agrees with the Committee’s recommendation.”
It will be interesting to see how guidance on defence PFIs will be refined.
I welcome the appointment of David Pitchford in connection with the major projects defence review. That will be useful in addressing some of the problems we see with these contracts, such as their long-term nature and the increased costs.