Finance Bill

Debate between Rob Marris and Roger Mullin

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

To those with little knowledge of Scottish limited partnerships, it may seem strange that I rise in this House to move new clause 7 in my name and those of my colleagues, but, despite what the name suggests, Scottish limited partnerships have limited connection to Scotland, and none to the Scottish Parliament. They were introduced in 1907 by the Chancellor of day, Herbert Asquith; despite rumours to the contrary, I was not present at the debates at the time, but the regulation, operation and dissolution of SLPs remain the exclusive preserve of Westminster, hence our moving this new clause.

Scottish limited partnerships have their own distinct legal personality. As a result, SLPs can, for example, hold assets, borrow money and enter into contracts. However, Asquith could never have foreseen that they would become a financial vehicle abused by international criminals and tax dodgers.

Great credit must go to the journalists of The Herald newspaper, particularly David Leask, for doggedly uncovering the truth about SLPs—and isn’t it good that for once we can praise journalism of the highest order delving into important matters, rather than merely dealing in tittle-tattle? Although some users of SLPs no doubt operate appropriately and responsibly, it is claimed that up to 95% of SLPs are mere tax evasion vehicles, including for criminal assets.

While SLPs may be registered in Scotland, they are often owned by partners based in the Caribbean or other jurisdictions that ensure ownership secrecy and low, or no, tax regimes. People operating outside the UK are exploiting opaque ownership structures to hide their true ownership. As Oxfam, too, has recently pointed out, brokers in countries such as Ukraine and Belarus are specifically marketing SLPs as “Scottish zero per cent. tax firms.”

The number of SLPs is growing apace. Data from Companies House revealed by The Herald show 25,000 were in place by the autumn of 2015 and new registrations have been increasing by 40% year-on-year since 2008.

To give an example of what can happen, in 2014 allegations emerged that SLPs had been used to funnel $1 billion out of banks in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova. The use of an SLP and a bank account in an EU country allows dodgy groups, for example from the ex-Soviet Union, to move their ill-gotten gains to tax havens under the cloak of respectability.

I am aware that the Scottish Government’s Finance Secretary, Derek Mackay, has recently written to the UK Government about SLPs. He sensibly pointed out in his letter that

“it is critical that due diligence checks are able to be made when SLPs are initially registered and when there are changes in partners, and that penalties are imposed on partners where the SLP does not comply with the relevant legislation”.

He went on to point out:

“The threat of serious organised crime does not respect borders and with the significant increase in cyber crime, it is essential that we take every step open to us to reduce this threat as much as possible”.

To that end, our new clause seeks an urgent review of SLPs that would, importantly, include taking evidence from the Scottish Government, from HMRC and from interested charities. We have crafted the new clause in the hope it will attract cross-party support, and I see no reason why anyone, other than those interested in encouraging criminality and tax evasion, would wish to oppose a review of this nature. I therefore urge the Minster to accept our new clause.

[Rob Marris]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I missed him saying this, but I do not think I did. Subsection (2) of his new clause states:

“The review must take into account the views of the Scottish Government, HMRC and interested charities.”

Is it because of the nature of SLPs that the new clause does not make reference to the Government of Wales and the Government of Northern Ireland?

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Technically, the SLPs are registered in Scotland, but they have ownership in tax havens all over the world and will therefore operate differently, given the way in which they were set up in 1907. As far as I am aware, the arrangements have not been reviewed in any significant detail since then.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Rob Marris and Roger Mullin

Thursday 30th June 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Roger Mullin]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Rob Marris]

I wanted to speak on stand part, not to the amendment.

Finance Bill

Debate between Rob Marris and Roger Mullin

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

I welcome the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) to her new post. If I recall correctly, one of the first debates that we took part in together was about that very important topic of whisky. It is appropriate that I mention that given the Minister’s condition.

[Rob Marris]

It was not from drinking whisky.

[Roger Mullin]

No, I know, but perhaps the Minister could take a few drams to relieve the pain. I certainly think that he deserves it given what he has put himself through over the past couple of days.

May I also say to the hon. Lady that we on the SNP Benches agree with everything that she has argued? I am delighted to say that we will be supporting her opposition to clause 72.

[Rob Marris]

That was a short speech.

[Roger Mullin]

It is not quite as short as that.

I want to speak to new clause 2, which is in my name, and I will begin with a quote that I have used before in this House:

“I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.”

I entirely agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that in April 2012. That is precisely why we are bringing this new clause to the Floor of the House today. Many people in remunerated employment, working hard every day of the week, will be surprised to learn that the managing director of an average European firm can expect to receive around £8 million in remuneration. Private equity fund managers are able to shrink their bills by paying, as we have heard, only 28% in capital gains, rather than 45% in income tax simply because it is classified as carried interest. In effect, they are getting a remuneration for managing other people’s money, and therefore they should be taxed in the same way that other people are taxed—through income tax.

A fund manager’s ability to pay capital gains instead of income tax allows them to avoid paying national insurance on part of their income. I am well aware of the Minister’s technical explanations about why we are dealing with a different form of gain. However, that does not wash with people in society who are undertaking their work in most other occupations in life. The Government yesterday indicated that they were content to squeeze yet more money out of the contractor sector, affecting teachers, nurses, people in rural communities and the like. These are not the people who are aggressively avoiding tax. The people who are aggressively avoiding tax are people working in the City of London. They are avoiding paying the income tax that the rest of the people in society are quite happy to comply with.

The loopholes that continue are simply an example of the over-complication of our tax system, a matter that has been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As we look at the thousands upon thousands of pieces of paper in the tax code, it is clear that the bigger we make it the more we create the possibility of loopholes. Surely the time has come for a more fundamental review of all forms of business taxation, a matter that I know the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has raised in the past.

Indeed, some of the people gaining considerable sums of money have great sympathy with this. I would like to quote not some of the campaigners but one of the highest-paid people in the country, the head of the private equity firm Cerberus, Stephen Feinberg. He said in 2011, tellingly:

“In general, I think that all of us are way overpaid in this business. It is almost embarrassing.”

I do not think that we should allow this gentleman, the head of an investment fund, and others to be embarrassed any more. I think we should end their embarrassment by making sure that in the future they pay appropriate levels of income tax.

We also find ourselves in agreement with the OECD, which in May 2014 recommended in its position on tax

“taxing as ordinary income all remuneration, including fringe benefits, carried interest arrangements, and stock options”,

and that this should be paid as income tax.

We have evidence not just from campaigners but from people in the City who admit that this is an anomaly that needs closing, so I ask the Minister to give further consideration to this important move. I would also say in general that we welcome quite a lot of the technical changes that have been made on investment, entrepreneurs relief and the like. We want to encourage an entrepreneurial economy, but not at the cost of heightening income inequality and of further division in society.

Finance Bill

Debate between Rob Marris and Roger Mullin

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the smallest enterprises—those employing perhaps their first or second employee and engaging in some kind of share ownership—are not in a position to pay a professional company £1,000 or £2,000 for the necessary valuation service, which was provided at no cost by HMRC. Organisations such as ProShare, which I think is based at University College London, have said that they are aware of a number of small businesses being discouraged from engaging in small-scale share ownership schemes precisely because the assistance that they were once afforded has been removed. If the demand for such services was so low, only a few people would have been needed to deliver them. The cost to the Government cannot therefore have been very great, so it seems somewhat perverse to abandon the service at a time when people are seeking to expand the number of share ownership schemes in society.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, for reasons that defy all understanding, did not think that our new clause 1 was dramatically superior to his new clause 3. No doubt he will attempt to convince the Committee of that argument later. New clause 1 proposes a review of the income tax treatment of workers providing services through intermediaries. We believe that this is particularly relevant in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman suggested earlier that the average return journey to and from work was 16.7 miles. Well, try telling that to people who live on the Isle of Skye and have to commute to places such as Fort William and Inverness. Try telling it to people who have to hop from island to island, such as the health workers who travel on ferries to service the islands and often need to stay overnight. Their situation is not remotely close to the average of 16 miles to travel to work.

A recent article in The Times Educational Supplement pointed out the proposal’s likely negative impact on the many aspects of the education sector that rely on people on particular types of contracts who do not enjoy the benefits of full-time employment. The Minister argued calmly, as he always does, that the change is a simply a matter of ensuring a level playing field. If he wanted a level playing field, he would be ensuring that workers employed through intermediaries benefit from sickness pay, holiday pay and many of the other advantages of full-time employment. They do not get those same benefits and cannot be compared with people in traditional forms of employment.

Indeed, I suspect that part of the problem is that the Government have misunderstood the needs of the modern labour market. People are no longer employed either in traditional ways or entirely self-employed in the way it is traditionally understood. Flexibilities in the labour market have developed in many ways over the past 10 or 20 years. Many such flexibilities play to and enable local economies, such as rural areas in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and specialist sectors, such as oil and gas, which need to import specialist services. These people might be based not in Scotland, but down here near London and may have to fly to provide their services. The proposal might have impacts that have not been thought through by the Government.

[Rob Marris]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with UCATT, which says that such workers should be directly employed if possible? For example, UCATT has obtained agreements on behalf of workers to get employment rights in workplaces such as the Olympics or Hinkley Point. While there is a place, as the hon. Gentleman says, for employing specialist workers on oil rigs, for example, not permanently but through an intermediary, the starter for 10 or opening position should be to try to have direct employment so that people get the full panoply of rights.

[Roger Mullin]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be better for some in this community to achieve traditional forms of employment, but that is not the situation for the in excess of 1 million people in the UK who fall into this category.

Despite the Minister’s warm words, we intend to press new clause 1. It relates to a matter of some real import for the communities and the economy of Scotland. I have indicated that we are simply speaking to amendment 180, which we will not press, and we will support the Opposition’s amendment 2.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak briefly on these amendments and new clauses. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) was absolutely right to mention HMRC. Successive Governments have consistently understaffed HMRC, consistently arguing that they would make it more efficient or whatever. When I was first elected to this House 19 years ago, I remember going to my local VAT office and being told that every member of staff collects five times their salary. Being a logical sort of person, I wrote to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggested that it was a good idea to employ more staff to collect more revenue for the Government. I received a letter back not from the Chancellor and not even from a junior Minister but from a civil servant, suggesting that HMRC was to save money by cutting staff. It was so irrational that it was just nonsense. That kind of nonsense has continued ever since—reducing the number of offices, making things more remote and so on. I was also not terribly impressed by the idea of having a benefits-distributing service—tax credits—going through HMRC rather than through the Department for Work and Pensions. I was not the only Opposition Member who was uneasy about that change.

I want to discuss new clause 3 and the tax treatment of workers employed through intermediaries and support my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) on the Front Bench. It has long occurred to me that intermediaries and private agencies make lots of money out of both the public purse and the people they employ. That could be overcome if we instituted a substantial public ownership programme for agencies, particularly when the public sector is involved. If there was a local authority or NHS agency for nurses, the money would either go into the pockets of the staff employed through the agency or would be saved in public spending by the health service—everyone would benefit. However, the people who would lose would be in the private sector, which could not make profits out of employing people in this way. In that way, staffing and taxation could be properly regulated. There would be no cheating, irregularities or tax fiddles, because it would all be within the publicly accountable public sector.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Rob Marris and Roger Mullin

Thursday 11th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Rob Marris]

It is a ray of sunshine to be serving under your chairmanship on this bright day, Mr Brady. Amendments 37 and 38 are straightforward, and I am sure that the Government will accept them, so perhaps we can move on to debate the clause. Proposed new section 1JA(1) gives the Treasury the power to give directions to the Financial Conduct Authority. The rest of the new section deals with how that power shall be exercised at least once in each Parliament, and with the publication of those directions. Our straightforward amendments would tidy that up.

One must recognise that there is a balancing act between the FCA’s independence and the need for public accountability, refracted through the Treasury. That is always difficult, and we accept that, but there is a bit of a problem with the Financial Conduct Authority. Immediately after Second Reading a couple of weeks ago, there was a debate for more than two hours in which I think it would be fair to say that Members from both sides of the House expressed grave concerns about some of the actions or inaction of the Financial Conduct Authority. It is purportedly independent of the Government and the Bank of England, but there is so much cosy overlap.

We have Dr Bailey, who now seems to have all kinds of hats. I stand to be corrected, but I think he is the deputy governor for prudential regulation and has been the chief executive officer of the Prudential Regulation Authority since April 2013. He is therefore also a member of the Bank’s board of directors, the PRA board and the Financial Policy Committee, and now he is going to the Financial Conduct Authority. There are questions not about that gentleman’s integrity, but about perceived conflicts of interests and so on. There is someone on the FCA board, Jane Platt—she also joined in April 2013—who is the chief executive of National Savings and Investments. Sir Brian Pomeroy, CBE, joined the FSA board in November 2009. I think that he may still be on the FCA website.

The FSA was abolished because it was, shall we say, pretty useless. Private Eye, correctly in my mind, used to characterise it as the Fundamentally Supine Authority. If we look at the prosecutions, or the lack thereof, and the steps taken by the FSA after the crash in 2008, or the lack thereof, it did not exactly cover itself in glory as an institution. I make no comments on the individuals within it; I am referring to the institution. The Government recognised that, and therefore we had the Financial Conduct Authority.

It is all a bit cosy. The noun of this Committee thus far seems to be groupthink. That refers to the risk that those who have a cosy relationship will start to be blinkered in the way in which they exercise their regulatory functions. The FSA has been characterised by Professor Alastair Hudson, whom I thank for his assistance in tackling what is quite a technical Bill. He said, “The FSA previously began to think of itself as being in partnership with the financial institutions which it was supposed to regulate.” I think he had a point. So, I suspect, did the Government, which is why we now have the FCA, not the FSA.

However, there is still a big question mark over the FCA’s relationship with the Government, which is to do with how independent it is. The Minister has previously told the House that the FCA’s decision to abandon its investigation into the culture of banking, which had not actually started, had nothing to do with the Treasury. That, of course, touches on questions of groupthink, blinkered thinking and so on. I do not impugn her for saying that, but looking at it from the perspective of Labour Members, that is a surprising situation. It is relevant to what we are discussing, because of course proposed new section 1JA, to be inserted by clause 18, talks about the Treasury giving directions to the FCA in certain circumstances.

The FCA, in its business plan for 2015-16—the year we are in—said that it would do a culture review:

“In 2015/16 we will conduct a new thematic review on whether culture change programmes in retail and wholesale banks are driving the right behaviour, in particular focusing on remuneration, appraisal and promotion decisions of middle management, as well as how concerns are reported and acted on.”

It would have been very useful to have had the fruits of that culture review before us when debating the Bill.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are quite a number of studies that indicate that approximately 70% of major organisational failures can be attributed primarily to cultural problems?

Tax Avoidance and Multinational Companies

Debate between Rob Marris and Roger Mullin

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because I must admit I was not aware that only 65 staff were involved in transfer pricing. That seems to me to be remarkably few, given the challenges they face. I would welcome anything that can be done to strengthen their numbers.

Times have changed. Back in the 1970s, it was never envisaged that huge multinational corporations could quickly arise as a result of operating in the world of the internet. The tax system, which has been built up over many years—as the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) mentioned, part of it dates from the 1920s or thereabouts—is singularly unable to deal with some of the types of international corporations, such as Facebook and Google, that there are today.

The world has changed fast in other regards. I am old enough to remember being able to go into a café and just ask for a coffee.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Surely not!

[Roger Mullin]

I am. Nowadays, I am delighted to say that I know about cappuccinos and other things.

[Rob Marris]

In your constituency?

[Roger Mullin]

Yes, throughout my constituency. There is wonderful cappuccino in Cowdenbeath, I have to say. The likes of Starbucks were not present years ago. The internationalisation of what seem to be simple products is a comparatively new phenomenon.

We must not lose sight of the fact that many more traditional players, not merely internet companies, are engaging in practices that may be legal, but create major challenges internationally. If I were to ask in a local pub quiz, which of course I rarely go to—

[Rob Marris]

Because you’re drinking coffee!

[Roger Mullin]

Quite. If I were to ask, “What is the biggest charity in the world?”, many people would say the Gates Foundation, which The Economist has estimated is worth about $37 billion. Few would say that the answer is, as The Economist pointed out a few years ago, the Stichting INGKA Foundation—a charitable body whose aims include

“the advancement of architecture and interior design”.

This charitable foundation owns INGKA Holding, which owns the IKEA group.

That set-up, which is admittedly much more complex than I have just described, operates and moves money across territories such as the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland and so on. The money is not even tracked within that foundation. The IKEA trademark is owned by another private company, Inter IKEA Systems. Just to operate IKEA’s stores, of which there are approximately 290 in the world, the charity has to make substantial yearly payments. Eventually, the trail is thought to lead back to the owning family. When there is such complexity—and it is even more complex than I have summarised—we can see the kind of international challenge there is. That is why I believe the current tax regimes to be ill-equipped to cope and why we need fundamental reform.

Let me give a glimpse of another tactic that is used—the offshoring of companies. There are approximately 19,000 businesses registered at a single address in the Cayman Islands. That must be a pretty big hoose, as we would say in Scotland.

[Rob Marris]

Full of IKEA furniture!

[Roger Mullin]

Yes, full of IKEA furniture.

It has been claimed by Oxfam, although I have not checked this out, that 98 of the FTSE 100 companies have subsidiaries in tax havens. There is a wider ethical question to address. This is not merely about how international corporations may evade UK tax. Some countries are much more vulnerable than the UK. There are considerable concerns, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, in the developing world. Some 30% of Africa’s wealth is held offshore. Research by the International Monetary Fund has found that developing countries lose $200 billion a year to tax avoidance—more than they get in all forms of foreign aid.

The UK needs to take a lead. Hopefully we will see that when the Prime Minister hosts the anti-corruption summit in May 2016, because the UK remains at the centre of a global network.

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Rob Marris and Roger Mullin

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Roger Mullin]

I fully agree; indeed, I look forward to the Minister’s response in that regard. This may have been a missed opportunity that the Government now recognise and will want to correct.

Let me make another comparison. In my own constituency, my wonderful constituency manager, Lynda Holton, pays about the same effective tax rate as many fund managers who earn 100 to 200 times more than her. [Hon. Members: “Pay her more!”] When I was on the phone to her this morning, she did want me to say “my underpaid constituency manager”. And she is underpaid, but of course I am a devotee to the rules of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in this regard. Surely it cannot be right that people on much more modest incomes have effective tax rates that are higher than those for some of the highest paid people in our society. I am prejudiced in favour of the simplification of tax as well as justice in tax. For both those reasons, I hope that the Government will respond positively to our new clause.

[Rob Marris]

Sir Roger, I did understand your explanation. As you know, I am new and old—a retread—and I found it very helpful; thank you.

Clauses 40 and 41 are essentially anti-avoidance measures, so hon. Members on the Opposition Benches welcome them. I welcome the fact that there will be no base cost shifting—something that is discussed in the pubs and clubs of Wolverhampton every night of the week; we are very keen on that. However—there is on occasion a “however”—we do not think that clauses 40 and 41 go far enough, because the carried interest is still treated as capital gains. It seems to us that treating carried interest as capital gains is a bad idea and the Government should not permit it. It certainly appears to be a tax loophole—again, not illegal, but immoral—and we think that it should be closed. I have considerable sympathy with the spirit and wording of new clause 2, which was spoken to very eloquently by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.