Draft Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2016 Draft Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-Prudential Measures) Order 2016

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 General Committees

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

I shall be brief. I have just a couple of questions for the Minister. I will say at the outset, however, that if the risks of failure are to be mitigated, the key issue to address is the culture in the institutions, as we have argued for a long time, and that cannot be addressed by regulation alone.

I want to come back to the opening remarks of the Minister when he talked about macro-prudential regulation and risks. Will he clarify exactly what assessment of risk has been taken post-Brexit? There are two components of risk that I am particularly interested in. First, what is the estimate of the probability of increased risk of failure? Secondly, what would the nature of that failure look like post-Brexit?

I support what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said about the need for oversight of the appointment of directors, and I would like to know more about the Government’s thinking in that regard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

It is an excellent scheme indeed. My right hon. Friend will know that it is not only the £23 billion of additional funding for economically productive infrastructure that was announced on Wednesday last week, but a core £150 billion of funding for the same defined purposes over the remainder of this Parliament and the Government’s commitment, repeated last Wednesday, to move to a roads fund from 2020, funded by the revenues from vehicle excise duty, all of which adds up to a sustained commitment to investment in our roads.

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

Brexit is putting business investment on hold at the expense of job losses. This comes after a long period of escalating debt and slumping growth. Furthermore, quantitative easing has failed to raise confidence and stimulate business investment in the real economy. The autumn statement measures announced are simply insufficient. What else will the Chancellor do?

[Mr Hammond]

I simply do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. The Bank of England’s monetary actions have undoubtedly had a positive effect in stimulating the economy. The performance of consumer demand over the past few weeks has demonstrated that very clearly. We have the key elements in place, both monetary and fiscal, for our current circumstance, which is the potential for a more difficult period ahead. We need to muster our resources, make sure that we are able to support the economy through this period, and, at the same time, address the fundamental challenges, such as the productivity problem, to ensure that Britain is match fit to meet the challenges that it will face as it leaves the European Union.

[Roger Mullin]

In that regard, I am sure that the Chancellor would agree that research and development investment is critical to obtaining a high skill, high wage economy and one that increases productivity, as he has recognised. It is therefore disappointing that the autumn statement has failed to match R and D investment as a percentage of GDP in line with other major economies. What will the Chancellor do to fill that gap?

[Mr Hammond]

What I will do over the medium to long term is get the British economy back on to a firm footing, so that we can fund all those investment needs—which we do have, as the hon. Gentleman points out. Let me turn the question around. Scotland will receive £800 million of additional capital funding through Barnett consequentials as a result of the announcement made last week. From the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I feel sure that the Scottish National party will want to confirm that that money will be used in Scotland, as it will in England, to target productivity-raising capital investment, so that the Scottish economy can perform more strongly in the future.

Autumn Statement

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am not going to be tempted, as a former Transport Secretary, to get into the weeds of my right hon. Friend’s portfolio and talk about specifics of individual projects on the rail network, but, as I said, he will be making a statement in the near future.

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

Will the Chancellor confirm that the assumption on pages 241 to 248 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” not only means that all forecast numbers will be subject to high margins of error but implies that the Government will fail to achieve single market membership?

[Mr Hammond]

No, it does not imply that. However, it is the case, as I have said, that the OBR has acknowledged specifically that there is a higher degree of uncertainty around its forecasts this autumn than there is usually, for reasons that are obvious.

Quantitative Easing

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

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

It is with some inevitable trepidation that I stand to speak in the debate, given the eloquence and experience of those who have spoken before me, not least the experience of a modest crofter from Skye, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I was taken not only by his great eloquence but by every contribution this afternoon in what, inevitably, is one of the most important debates that I have taken part in. It is also one of the most thoughtful. While others can wax eloquent given their experience in the financial sector over many years and their distinguished careers, I come to this issue trying perhaps to give voice to others who do not have that background.

The ordinary person in the street would recognise that we live in troubled times. There is increased uncertainty and the stability and certainties of the past seem to have flown past. For example, who could have foreseen at the outset of QE that today many economies would be experiencing weak growth, low business investment, collapsing prospects for pensions, near negative interest rates penalising savers and a huge increase, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said, in wealth inequality.

I would like to add something else to the equation. We need to recognise the political instability that has arisen. People are feeling that they are disfranchised, have no voice and are losing hope. That is one of the profound social and political consequences that deserves to be considered.

It was not supposed to be like this. It may be wise to cast a critical eye over what seemed to most people, myself included, an entirely logical response to the crisis some years ago. It is good that people are able to reflect. Although it comes hard for many politicians, it is good when we, too, are modest enough to recognise that we do not always get it right and that we need to learn from experience. For example, many people in recent years feel that the UK Government’s economic plan has been blind to some of the consequences of QE. That is seen in the poverty, in many cases, of the fiscal response to aid those who are not benefiting from the increasing wealth. The Treasury needs to think about doing more to achieve a better balance between the fiscal response and the monetary response. The time is surely right for it to mount a rigorous and open appraisal of the balance between monetary policy and fiscal measures, and of whether each of the rounds of QE has had the desired effect. The Bank could also look at that question.

Let us recall some of the antecedents of QE. I might not have worked in a bank at any time—the only time I go into the bank is when I receive a phone call from it—but in a past life, I used to read quite a lot about this subject. Everyone attending this debate will recall that it was back in 1969, in a paper by Milton Friedman entitled “The Optimum Quantity of Money”, that the idea of what we know today as QE was created. Friedman contended that if policy interest rates reached the lower bound of zero, it would be appropriate for a central bank to purchase assets—Government bonds in the first instance—to create a wealth effect that it was no longer possible to achieve through the conventional interest rate policy of the central bank. Friedman’s notion of quantitative easing was that asset prices would be boosted, leading to an increase in confidence and spending through the wealth effect. In turn, economic activity would be given a boost.

In more recent times, however, even that great monetarist Allan Meltzer—who has written widely on the development and application of monetary policy and on the history of central banking in the US—has questioned the efficacy of QE, arguing that it has not led to what Friedman expected. In particular, the key aim of creating an increase in confidence and therefore investment has not transpired as hoped. Today, too, central bankers seem content to see inflated asset prices. But who speaks for the millions of savers around the world? Who speaks for the ordinary men and women who have paid the price of banking failure? Where were the UK Government when our economy failed to diversify or balance in the aftermath of the global financial crisis? Where were the necessary fiscal measures when it transpired that the relatively poor were paying the price for the mistakes of the wealthy? The SNP and others understood the use of quantitative easing by the Bank of England as a response to the 2008 crisis to be a temporary measure to help to regain stability. How long, I now ask, is this temporary measure going to last?

I agree with my hon. Friend the crofter that the effects of monetary policy have to a great extent been undermined by the austerity agenda, which is now leaving a legacy of unintended consequences that is placing an unprecedented burden on future generations. Broadly speaking, the policies being followed by central banks around the world benefit a relatively narrow group of people—equity-rich individuals and investment banks, for example—but few others. It is the unintended consequences—I admit that they are unintended—of QE that must now be the focus of policymakers.

[Mr Baker]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Bank of England is not represented here, and I do not agree with it, but if it were here, I suspect that it would say that everybody benefited, given the reality that there would have been a worse recession if it had not acted. Does he agree that that argument is now wearing thin?

[Roger Mullin]

The hon. Gentleman must have read the next part of my speech. However, that allows me to haste along and agree precisely with what he has said.

A friend of mine, Dr Jim Walker, wrote to me recently and pointed out that

“interest rates throughout history have not only been the cost of capital (or the reward to thrift) but have also been a signalling mechanism about the future”.

We now know that zero interest rates and QE tell business owners and entrepreneurs that there is little or no growth coming. They therefore encourage businesses to hold cash and be extremely cautious about investment. The signalling mechanisms have had a different effect from those predicted by Friedman. It is again time to review the situation. It would be difficult to argue that QE has therefore led to the increase in confidence and investment that was the argument for it.

We can also see other consequences. Despite eight years of near zero interest rates, UK real gross fixed capital formation is 2.8% lower than its 2007 peak. Therefore, investment in the real economy has not been boosted in the way that was originally thought. A similar phenomenon has being going in other aspects of the economy on the demand side, such as in how households have been afflicted. Zero interest rates and asset purchases were supposed to convince ordinary people to borrow and spend more immediately, but some key groups have reacted to zero interest rates by saving more. Why? In order to provide for old age, they can no longer rely on the positive compounding effect of above zero interest rates; nor can they rely on getting the type of annuity for which they may have planned. Instead of encouraging that group to spend, policies have encouraged them to save more due to fear for the future. Such savers are understandably angry. After years of saving some of their income, many people have zero income from their savings.

I am not somebody who is disadvantaged—I have a well-paid job in this House—but I wonder how people who, like me, have a cash ISA are feeling. Before the crash, it was fairly common to get 6% interest, but I received a letter a few weeks ago to point out that from 1 December the interest rate is going to be reduced yet again to 0.1%. The time has come to undertake a critical review of the policies of recent years.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I say to the Front-Bench spokesmen that there are three of them and we are going to finish at 5 pm.

Finance Bill

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to the Financial Secretary for the way in which she has led the final stages of the Bill and to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who has led for the Opposition. She took over in difficult circumstances and has handled it with great composure and competence.

It is clear to many people in the Commons today that this is a right bourach of a Bill, as we would say in Scotland. Not long after the Government voted down the SNP’s new clause on Scottish limited partnerships last night, the distinguished commentator and author Ian Fraser took to Twitter to say:

“Now we know @theresa_may’s pledge to ‘reform capitalism’ was so much hot air”.

Indeed it was hot air. The only people smiling as a result of the Government’s opposition to our new clause are the criminals and tax evaders who will benefit so much from it.

The Government’s opposition to our new clause on oil and gas, which like our new clause on Scottish limited partnerships had much external support as well as support in the House, shows that they are ill fitted to lead the oil and gas sector into the future. It does not end there. The Government continue to victimise Scotland’s emergency services in respect of VAT, to press ahead with reforms that are compromising the provision of affordable private sector rented accommodation and to ignore the harm they are doing to micro and small businesses with their so-called tax reforms. The list could go on. It becomes clear that the SNP will oppose the Bill.

Finance Bill

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 12—Report on the impact of the criminal offences relating to offshore income, assets and activities—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within one year of the coming into force of the provisions in TMA 1970 relating to criminal offences relating to offshore income, assets and activities introduced by section 165 of this Act publish a report on the impact of the introduction of these offences.

(2) The report must include, but need not be limited to, information about—

(a) the number of persons who have been charged with offences under each of sections 106B, 106C and 106D of TMA 1970;

(b) the number of persons who have been convicted of any such offence;

(c) the average fine imposed; and

(d) the number of people upon whom a custodial sentence has been imposed for any such offence.

New clause 13—Report into the UK Tax Gap—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within one year of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish a report, in consultation with stakeholders, on the UK Tax Gap.

(2) The report must include the following—

(a) details of the UK Tax Gap (including individual breakdowns for figures relating to tax avoidance and tax evasion) for the financial years—

(i) 2015-16;

(ii) 2014-15;

(iii) 2013-14;

(iv) 2012-13; and

(v) 2011-12;

(b) a detailed summary of the model used by HMRC for estimating the UK Tax Gap;

(c) an assessment of the efficacy of HMRC’s performance in relation dealing with the UK Tax Gap, including—

(i) a breakdown of specific HMRC departments or units dealing with investigation and enforcement matters in relation to the UK Tax Gap;

(ii) details of the numbers of staff in each of the years listed in paragraph (a) who are located within departments or units dealing with investigation and enforcement matters in relation to the UK Tax Gap;

(iii) details of the budgets allocated to departments or units dealing with investigation above; and

(iv) details of the numbers of prosecutions or the amount of tax recovered in each financial year listed in paragraph (a) as a result of the work of HMRC departments or units dealing with investigation and enforcement matters in relation to the UK Tax Gap in those financial years.

(d) a review of the impact on tax revenues of requiring non-public organisations involved in public procurement processes to—

(i) be registered in the UK for tax purposes;

(ii) have paid UK tax for a period of at least five years prior to the date the relevant contract is awarded;

(iii) publish full details of beneficial ownership for the period of five years prior to the date the relevant contract is awarded; and

(iv) provide company accounts (including those of any beneficial owners) for the period of five years prior to the date the relevant contract is awarded.

(e) a comprehensive assessment of the efficacy of the General Anti Abuse Rule in discouraging tax avoidance;

(f) an assessment of the impact on tax revenues of introducing a set of minimum standards in relation to tax transparency for all British crown dependencies and overseas territories including (but not limited to)—

(i) placing a statutory duty on British crown dependencies and overseas territories to observe a system of good governance and practice in relation to tax enforcement; and

(ii) requiring British crown dependencies and overseas territories to maintain a public register of owners, directors, major shareholders and beneficial owners;

(g) an assessment of the impact on tax revenues of establishing a public register of all trusts located within the UK, British Crown Dependencies and overseas territories, including but not limited to—

(i) details of the names of beneficiaries to such trusts;

(ii) details of the addresses of beneficiaries to such trusts;

(iii) details of assets held by such trusts;

(iv) details of any trustees registered within the UK who have transferred that main residence to non-UK jurisdictions;

(v) details of tax avoidance schemes involving trusts which are currently disclosed to the HMRC.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the “UK Tax Gap” means the difference in any financial year between the amount of tax HMRC should be entitled to collect and the tax actually collected in that financial year which derives from tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Government amendments 136 and 137.

Amendment 167, in clause 163, page 293, line 25, leave out “may” and insert ”must”.

Amendment 168, in page 293, line 41, leave out “may” and insert ”must”.

Amendment 171, in clause 165, page 295, line 9, at end insert

“and that the person had an honest belief that all of the information included was true and accurate”.

Amendment 172, in page 295, line 26, at end insert

“and that the person had an honest belief that all of the information included was true and accurate”.

Amendment 173, in page 295, line 40, at end insert

“and that the person had an honest belief that all of the information included was true and accurate”.

Amendment 145, in schedule 19, page 589, line 29, at end insert—

‘(6) The Treasury may by regulations require the group tax strategy to include a country-by-country report.

(7) In this paragraph “country-by-country report” has the meaning given by the Taxes (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) (Country-by-Country Reporting) Regulations 2016.”

Amendment 163, in schedule 20, page 609, line 34, at end insert

“or 100% of any fee paid by Q to P in respect of enabling Q to carry out offshore tax evasion or non-compliance”.

Amendment 164, in page 609, line 40, at end insert

“or 100% of any fee paid by Q to P in respect of enabling Q to carry out offshore tax evasion or non-compliance”.

Amendment 165, in schedule 21, page 618, leave out lines 27 to 34 and insert—

[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.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making the powerful case that some SLPs are being used for criminal or money-laundering purposes. Those are serious crimes and they should be reported. Has he reported them? Is not this an enforcement issue?

[Roger Mullin]

It is certainly a very important issue, but I think it would be better if we could get the Government to carry out the kind of detailed scrutiny that would enable them to enact the necessary legislation. Their voice would be far more powerful than mine in this regard.

I should also like to pass comment on amendment 145, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), which we will certainly be supporting. I am sure that she will have much more to say about it in a moment. It is a modest amendment to encourage much-needed country-by-country reporting for corporations, and I look forward to hearing her remarks. She can be assured that her actions have the full support of Members on these Benches. Similarly, we hope that the Opposition will press new clause 13 to a vote. We also intend to support that proposal.

This whole section dealing with tax evasion is very important, and it is vital that the UK as a whole lives up to its responsibility to ensure that we do not get a name for encouraging tax dodgers. I want to mention the remarkable and brave journalist Roberto Saviano, who has been admired for exposing the murderous criminal underworld of the Italian mafia. In a recent article in The Daily Telegraph, he warned that the UK financial world was effectively allowing what he called “criminal capitalism” to thrive. Surely we must take steps today to ensure that that is not the case.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

In speaking to amendment 145 today, I am grateful for the chance once again to put the case that large multinationals should co-operate with public country-by-country reporting in the UK so that we can all gain greater insight into the trading activities that determine the amount of corporation tax being paid.

As a new member of the Public Accounts Committee in February, I heard first hand Google and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs try to explain how £130 million represented a good deal after a decade’s-worth of unpaid taxes and reasons to justify non-payment. This cross-party Committee of the House felt that the way in which global multinationals play the system denies a fair take for HMRC, having an impact on our public services, and is unfair to British taxpayers and businesses, for whom such a complicated organisation of tax affairs is not an option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Does the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) wish to respond, which he is permitted, but not required, to do?

[Roger Mullin]

A few words, Mr Speaker. I merely wish to say that I am incredibly disappointed that the Government have chosen to drag their feet on the issue of Scottish limited partnerships, and that, on the basis of their own arguments, we will press new clause 7 to a vote.

[Mr Speaker]

That was a commendably pithy speech from the hon. Gentleman, for which I think the House is almost audibly grateful, if I may put it that way.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Given the huge amount of interest in this debate—[Laughter]— I shall try to be as brief as possible.

Let me begin by welcoming the Chief Secretary to his new post. I have always found him very courteous, extremely helpful, and irrepressibly optimistic about Government policy.

During his very interesting opening speech, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a number of references to fiscal rules, and that brought into my mind what I consider to be part of the problem with this whole debate. It is not so much about, “What are your rules?” It is a matter of, “Do you have an understanding of the nature of the economy that underpins any rules you may wish to set?” That is part of the problem.

I was also interested when the hon. Gentleman mentioned Andy Haldane of the Bank of England. I was at a speech Andy Haldane gave a few weeks ago, at which he pointed out that one of the things that had not been taken into account nearly enough was the nature of culture and behaviour in the financial area, and I would say in the economy as a whole.

I have a bee in my bonnet about the fact that much of the debate that happens in all parts of this House makes a fundamental assumption about the nature of economics today. It is broadly accepting of what many people would call neoclassical economics. That, to me, is a fundamental problem, and I will try briefly to explain why.

My critique of neoclassical economics is also based on what Andy Haldane talked about: an understanding of behaviour. Behaviour is fundamental to understanding economics. That has largely been lost in many of the analyses of the economy today.

As recently as 1 May this year, the distinguished Professor David Simpson wrote:

“Discontent with neoclassical economics has finally boiled over with the failure of Treasury civil servants and central bankers along with almost all academic economists to anticipate the largest recession since the 1930s, and the powerlessness of these policymakers in the face of the subsequent stagnation of output.”

There, for me, is the rub: current dominant thinking has taken economics down a mechanistic cul-de-sac, where it is no longer the purpose of economics to say, “How are you going to ultimately affect people in our society?” Instead it is about some surrogate technical measures that can be conveniently measured by the mathematicians among the Treasury, but fundamentally classical economics was about people and the effect behaviour had on people through markets.

Economics should involve qualitative at least as much as quantitative change measures. A market economy needs to be understood as an evolutionary—a change—process. Its changing nature inspires innovation and change and thereby creates complexity. That essential feature of innovation, according to the late Tom Burns—which he called the application of novelty—finds however absolutely no place whatsoever within the current dominant tradition. We cannot accommodate these types of behavioural variance that do not lend themselves to linear algebra. Therefore, factors that are not easily measured are left out by Treasury economic models.

Indeed, as Mervyn King pointed out in his recent book, “The End of Alchemy”, things like the political decision to go ahead with monetary union in Europe in 1999 had profound effects on output and growth in the western world, yet found no place whatsoever in the economic forecasting models used by central bank policymakers. I would add therefore that Government models of the economy are singularly ill-equipped to model the impact of Brexit. Hence, all the uncertainty we face today.

Sometimes it is intelligent to recognise when models are broken. It is little wonder therefore that Government forecasts have in recent years always been wrong, because they cannot take account of the type of behavioural change I have hinted at. Indeed, it would be utterly astonishing if by some fluke they were regularly accurate given the current model of the economy.

Let me give a couple of examples of why behaviour is important. I mentioned one in this House a few days ago in a debate about EU nationals. It involves a constituent of mine, Dougie Grant, who arranges mortgages for people. As a result of the Brexit vote, a deal he was about to close for two of my constituents was called off at the last minute because they were EU nationals who did not want to take the risk of investing here when their future was so uncertain. That could not be modelled by any linear algebra.

When I was on the Finance Bill Committee with the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I tabled a few amendments relating to subjects such as the effect of dividend tax on corporations. I am sure he remembers that debate well. When I asked whether the impact of certain measures on micro-businesses and small businesses had been modelled, I was told that HMRC does not model the size of businesses. Following a subsequent question that I sent to the Treasury about another aspect of the economy, I have received a written response in the past few days saying that the model of the Treasury’s economy does not take account of the size of businesses. Yet there is not a businessman in this House who does not recognise the profound difference in behaviour between someone leading an international corporation and someone running a small family business. We need to return to the human element, the behavioural element, of economics to enable us to understand more. That is my plea to the Government, and I will be supporting the Opposition motion today.

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 118 to 120 and clauses 123 to 124 extend the reliefs available from the annual tax on enveloped dwellings—ATED—and the 15% higher rate of stamp duty land tax. Clause 125 corrects a minor technical amendment. ATED and the 15% rate of SDLT were introduced as part of a package of measures to tackle tax avoidance. They will ensure that individuals who envelope residential properties by owning or purchasing them through corporate structures without a commercial purpose pay a fair share of tax. The intention is to discourage future enveloping and encourage those who have enveloped to take the properties they own out of those structures. The 15% higher rate is charged on the enveloping of the property, and ATED is charged annually for as long as the property remains within the envelope.

There are a series of reliefs from ATED and the 15% rate, aimed at genuine commercial use of the property. If the conditions for any particular relief are met, the 15% rate is reduced to the rate of SDLT that would ordinarily apply, and the ATED charge can be reduced to nil. Initially, when these taxes were introduced, they applied to properties valued at more than £2 million. However, legislative changes introduced in the Finance Act 2014 reduced that threshold to £500,000 from 1 April 2016. Following that reduction in the threshold, certain legitimate business activities have been identified where these taxes can apply. The clauses intend to provide relief for those cases.

Clause 118 resolves a problem that arose only in relation to the 15% rate of SDLT. Currently, where a residential property is acquired with the intention of using it for business premises—for example, as offices from which to run the trade or business—or for conversion or demolition or use for one or more relievable purposes, the 15% rate applies. The clause will relieve those types of business activity from the 15% rate to guard against abuse. If, within a three-year period, the property is no longer held exclusively for a relievable purpose, relief is withdrawn.

Clauses 119 and 123 provide relief from both the 15% rate and ATED in situations where a residential property is acquired or held exclusively for the purposes of an equity release scheme, referred to as a regulated home reversion plan. Those plans are typically offered by insurance companies to older people. The company buys all or part of their property in exchange for an annuity and a lifetime tenancy. The result of that can be that by having an interest in a residential property, the insurance company can become liable to the 15% rate and ATED where the value exceeds £500,000. Clauses 119 and 123 relieve home reversion plans from the charges. However, in order to protect against abuse, where the conditions are no longer met, relief will not be available.

In relation to clauses 120 and 124, relief is currently given where a property is made available to an employee of a trade, or where a property is rented out. However, no relief is available where a property is used by an employee of a property rental business or where a tenant-run flat management company permits one of the flats to be occupied by a caretaker. These clauses extend the current reliefs to remove those gaps. Similarly, where the conditions are no longer met, relief will no longer be available. For the 15% rate, it will be withdrawn if the property is no longer held exclusively for a relievable purpose. Those changes came into effect on 1 April 2016.

Clause 125 ensures that the ATED regime continues to function effectively following the introduction of the land buildings transaction tax in Scotland.

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

Very briefly, I want to commend the Minister. We fully support clause 125.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.

These reliefs ensure that the 15% rate of SDLT and ATED work together effectively as intended to tackle avoidance, while supporting genuine businesses. I hope that these clauses can stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 119 to 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122

SDLT: property authorised investment funds and co-ownership authorised contractual schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Lady on the clear case she has made. We shall also oppose this measure.

I have one question for the Minister. He mentioned that 26,000 would be taken out of the tax altogether and 18,000 would pay less because of this change. Will he clarify how many of those are in Scotland and the north of England, compared with some of the richer parts of the country? I think that would be informative. Secondly, this is the wrong initiative at the wrong time, and it is targeted at the wrong people. That is why we will oppose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. Our discussions this afternoon are focused on the raising of expenditure, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is leading on how that money can be spent. However, it is perfectly reasonable for her to make that point. I encourage businesses to engage with BIS on how the apprenticeship levy can be spent to ensure that it goes to the right places and creates a more highly skilled workforce. The Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), is engaging with businesses in many sectors up and down the country to ensure that we have the right set of rules in place. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that the Government amendments are sensible revisions, and that they will accept that the SNP amendment is not needed, as we have already published detailed guidance on how the levy will operate for employers across the UK.

I want to reiterate the importance of investing in apprenticeships, which are a powerful tool for enabling social mobility and driving productivity growth. They equip people with the skills they need to compete in the labour market, and enable employers to grow their businesses. The apprenticeship levy will put employers in control and give them an even greater say in the quality, value for money and relevance of the training that their apprentices receive.

[Roger Mullin]

I rise to speak to new clause 2. I commend the Minister for mentioning the importance of productivity and of generating much more investment. I am sure everyone in the Committee agrees wholeheartedly. However, the problem of productivity relates to particular strata of apprenticeships—for example, higher-skilled apprentices are needed. Fundamental questions are being asked in the different jurisdictions of the UK about how best to address that. Although one levy system is being imposed in the UK, different forms of apprenticeships are being created. There is some anxiety among employers and different Government agencies about whether the Government should be moving at this pace before these matters are clarified.

This is a probing new clause. I simply ask the Minister to address a few short questions to assist our further thinking. First, in the designing of the levy system, was account taken of the fact that different apprenticeship systems operate with different funding levels in different parts of the United Kingdom?

Secondly, we know that some of the systems and administrative arrangements that are being put in place vary considerably from one part of the UK to another. To what extent does the Minister accept that the levy may be top-sliced to fund some of those systems? For example, as he is aware, the digital voucher system that is planned for England will not operate in Scotland. Is it to be funded separately, or will the funding come out of the levy costs?

Thirdly, who has to pay this levy? It makes a lot of sense, and the Minister talked eloquently about businesses, but it is not merely traditional businesses that are expected to pay the levy. In Scotland, further education colleges are the biggest provider of the education that supports the apprenticeship system. On the latest calculation, they will collectively have to pay approximately £1.9 million for the apprenticeship levy, when we expect them to be the main providers of education training. I would like to hear the Government explain why colleges and some large training providers are expected to pay the levy. Will that not dilute their resources for investment in quality apprenticeships?

With those questions, I would like to hear some of the Government’s further reasoning. I think that there is a case, which has been made to us by many employers and agencies, for the Government to take their time and be careful about implementing the levy.

[Philip Boswell]

I fully support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. I rise to speak to a different issue relating to the clause. I have concerns about the apprenticeship levy and its application and implementation in the devolved Administrations. Skills policy is devolved, so the design and implementation of the apprenticeship programme in Scotland are devolved to Holyrood. Such programmes are also devolved to the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Howarth. I will be brief. We on the Scottish National party Benches support the amendment. The issue of carried interest has also been of interest to us, as the Minister knows only too well. I commend the amendment, and if the Labour party wishes to press it to a vote, we will certainly support it.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me address the issue of complexity; I hope I can be helpful to the Committee on that. The new rules replace the badges of trade that previously outlined the tax treatment of carried interest. The badges of trade are based on complex case law, which means that the law was determined by a wide range of varied and outdated judicial decisions. Bringing these new rules into legislation removes ambiguity and makes the tax code easier to follow. Furthermore, much of the detail of the legislation comprises bespoke rules that apply to specific types of funds. Those specialised rules will help reduce the compliance burden for funds in practice. Asset managers are sophisticated taxpayers who often have personal advisers; we therefore anticipate it being easy for those individuals to follow these rules.

Very often, the measure of tax complexity is taken to be the length of the tax code. I confess that I have sat where the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West is sitting and made that point myself; he has heard me make it. In this example, there are additional pages of legislation; however, they are replacing legislation that took up fewer pages but was based on case law, which can be very complicated. It is worth pointing out the limitations of pages as a measurement of complexity.

On the OECD recommendations, treating carried interest as a capital gain rather than income is the right approach. It keeps the UK in step with other countries and, as I said, it is the approach adopted consistently by previous Governments in this country over a long time. There is nothing particularly unusual about the way in which we treat carried interest in this country. I am conscious that this is a matter that we debate on a fairly regular basis; it is the second time we have debated it in a week. We are being consistent with what we have done in this country for some time and with what other countries do. I hope those points are helpful, but if the hon. Gentleman presses amendment 8, I will urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Income-based carried interest

Amendments made: 43, in clause 37, page 67, line 45, leave out “value” and insert “amount”.

Amendment 44, in clause 37, page 68, line 41, leave out “company” and insert “underlying scheme”.

Amendment 45, in clause 37, page 68, line 43, leave out “a company” and insert “an underlying scheme”.

Amendment 46, in clause 37, page 68, line 47, leave out “value” and insert “amount”.

Amendment 47, in clause 37, page 70, line 15, leave out “company” and insert “underlying scheme”.

Amendment 48, in clause 37, page 70, line 21, leave out “value” and insert “amount”.

Amendment 49, in clause 37, page 70, line 34, at end insert

“, or the acquisition of portfolios of investments from,”.— (Mr Gauke.)