Finance Bill (Third sitting)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, in schedule 5, page 364, line 10, at end insert—

“443A Review of effects in relation to PFI companies

(1) Within three months of the coming into force of this Chapter, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the effects of the provisions of this Chapter in relation to PFI companies.

(2) The review shall consider in particular the effects if the provisions of—

(a) the Chapter, and

(b) the exemption in section 439

were not to apply to PFI companies.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons within three months of its completion.”

This amendment requires a review to be undertaken of the impact of the provisions of Chapter 8 of new Part 10 of TIOPA 2010 in relation to PFI companies and if the provisions did not apply to PFI companies.

Amendment 28, in schedule 5, page 367, line 46, at end insert—

“448A Sectoral reporting on operation of this Chapter

(1) Within fifteen months of the coming into force of this Chapter, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review about the operation of its provisions in relation to different sectors.

(2) The sectors covered by this review shall be—

(a) water and sewerage,

(b) gas and electricity,

(c) telecommunications,

(d) railway facilities,

(e) roads and other transport facilities,

(f) health facilities,

(g) educational facilities,

(h) facilities or housing accommodation provided for use by any of the armed forces,

(i) facilities or housing accommodation provided for use by any police force,

(j) court or prison facilities,

(k) waste processing facilities,

(l) buildings (or parts of buildings) occupied by any relevant public body other than for purposes principally concerned with matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (k).

(3) A review under this section shall separately identify, in respect of each sector, information on operation in respect of qualifying infrastructure companies undertaking activities that were previously undertaken by a nationalised industry.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons within three months of its completion.”

This amendment would require HMRC to report on the operation of the special provisions in Schedule 5 relating to public infrastructure in relation to sectors and, within sectors, in relation to privatised companies as a group.

Amendment 6, in schedule 5, page 368, line 13, at end insert—

“‘a PFI company’ means a company which has entered into a contract with a public sector body under the Private Finance Initiative or the PF2 initiative.”

This amendment defines a PFI company.

That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

New clause 1—Review of relief from corporation tax relief for PFI companies—

“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review about how corporation tax relief is given for losses, deficits, expenses and other amounts of PFI companies.

(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘a PFI company’ means a company which has entered into a contract with a public sector body under the Private Finance Initiative or the PF2 initiative.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons within three months of its completion.”

This new clause requires a review to be undertaken of the corporation tax reliefs available to PFI companies.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Howarth. I am looking forward to this debate because it is something all of us across the House feel concerned about. I recognise that we are debating the Finance Bill. I reassure you that the amendments and the majority of what I will talk about today are about taxation and, in particular, the requirements of the legislation. I just want briefly to set out how that fits into the context of the concerns that are shared across the House about private finance and the cost to the public sector of borrowing to be able to build the infrastructure that we all know we need.

To be clear, Governments of all colours have used private finance and continue to do so. The private finance initiative and private finance 2 schemes are little different from each other. It is recognised that questions about the companies involved and the role of taxation in the decision to use PFI or PF2 to fund public infrastructure are questions for all of us, because we see in our constituencies the problems that are caused.

I note that the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar now has repayments of £169 million as a result of private finance. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, the shadow Minister, has £423 million-worth of repayments required under private finance contracts. I would describe private finance as the hire purchase of the public sector—indeed the legal loan sharks of the public sector— because the companies offer credit to the public sector, but at a high cost. In particular, the cost of the credit—the taxation that will come from the companies involved—is part of the decision to go with them. That is specifically part of the Green Book calculations. I am looking forward to the Minister telling us what has happened to those Green Book calculations, which were supposedly withdrawn in 2013 but I understand are still being used by Departments for private finance deals, to understand how tax plays a part in the decision to use private finance companies. The idea is that this form of credit may be more expensive but that the companies will repay us in taxation in the UK. That forms part of the decision to use them. The widespread evidence now is that those companies are not paying UK taxes, and that they are benefiting from changes in our tax regime over the past 20 or 30 years. That should trouble all of us because we are not getting the value for money that the deals were supposed to be.

One of my concerns that I hope the Minister will address is that PF2 also pays little regard to the question of where the companies are situated and how much tax they pay. I have therefore tabled two amendments—in fact, three; one is about defining private finance companies—to understand what kind of deal we are getting from those companies and how we as taxpayers and those who represent taxpayers can get a better deal for the British public.

For the avoidance of doubt, the debate is not about not using private finance. One day, I hope that we will have another debate—I am sure the Minister will look forward to it as much as he is looking forward to this one—about the alternatives to private finance. There is a role for private finance, but the question is, if we are getting a bad deal and if the companies are not honouring the obligations that we as taxpayers assigned to them, what can we do about it?

Clearly, the PFI companies are making huge profit. Research from the Centre for Health and the Public Interest shows that over the next five years almost £1 billion in taxpayer funds will go to PFI companies in the form of pre-tax profits. That is 22% of the extra £4.5 billion given to the Department of Health alone.

In my constituency I see at first hand the impact of this. Whipps Cross University Hospital is technically in the constituency next door, but serves my local community—it is part of Barts, which has the biggest PFI contract in the country: £1 billion-worth of build, £7 billion to be repaid. The hospital is paying back £150 million a year in PFI charges, more than 50% of which is interest alone on the loan. The hospital downgraded the nurses’ post to try to save money, and so found that many nurses left. It therefore faced a higher agency bill.

It is clear that PFI and the cost of those loans drives problems. It is also clear that those companies make what I would term excessive profits. That is where new clause 1 begins to try to offer us some answers. If the companies make excessive profits, that is not part of the contract that we signed with them. The National Audit Office has been incredibly critical of how taxation played a role in decisions about private finance companies, but that has not been realised.

Also, not that many companies are involved, yet the tax returns are huge. Just eight companies own or appear to have equity stakes in 92% of all the PFI contracts in the NHS. Innisfree manages Barts, which is my local hospital, and it has just 25 staff but stands to make £18 billion over the coming years. It might be thought, therefore, that companies of that size and stature would pay a substantial amount of tax—I see that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar can predict where I am going with this; sadly, it does not appear to be the case.

Indeed, many of the companies seem to report little or no tax in the UK. One of the simple reasons for that is that many of them are not registered in the UK. That is crucial because the provisions in the Bill to give those companies a relief on paying tax on the interest that they get from shareholder debt are predicated on the idea that they are UK companies. That is the starting point for amendments 5 and 6. The Bill will bring in a cap on the amount of relief that companies can claim against interest. However, there is a public sector exemption, for public sector infrastructure companies, and it will substantially benefit the companies in question.

Having been a Member of this House for seven years, I have always assumed that when such a provision is introduced we will be able to debate its merits. I note that the restrictions in relation to the measure mean that we cannot stop it, or ask whether we are being wise and whether, given that we know the companies do not necessarily pay the tax it was assumed they would in the UK, we are getting their tax situation right. We cannot stop the measure, but we can certainly ask just how much the companies are going to benefit from it.

Amendments 5 and 6 are intended to enable taxpayers to understand how much the companies will benefit from the exemption, and how much extra money they will be able to write off against their tax bill, thus paying little tax in the future. It matters very much to the companies, because most are heavily indebted to their shareholders. They use a model involving 80% to 90% senior debt; the rest is equity loans in terms of the products that they offer. PF2 will change that very little. The amount of debt that they carry, and therefore the amount of interest that they can trade off, which the measure will allow them to do, will be relevant to their ability to give returns to their shareholders.

It is clear that those companies give their shareholders substantial returns, and will be able to fund that through such tax relief. Indeed, the shareholders’ returns are 28% on their sales—more than double the 12% to 15% that was predicted in the business cases. Between 2000 and 2016 the total value of sales of shares in PFI companies was £17 billion. It is notable that in 2016 100% of equity transactions involving those companies were to offshore infrastructure funds in Jersey, Guernsey and Luxembourg. That is based on a sample of 334 projects.

Those companies are going to get a substantial tax relief from the exemption. Yet they do not pay tax in the UK—or, certainly, there is a lot of evidence that they do not. It is an exemption that will enable them to continue to justify paying little or no tax; they will be able to write off the interest on their loans and projects against it. Yet taxpayers are not benefiting from the tax that they said they would pay.

New clause 1 goes to the heart of that question. Those companies signed up for public sector contracts, with particular rates of tax at the time they were finalised. Yet, as we know, corporation tax has varied substantially over the past decade. The debate is not about what the right level of corporation tax is; it is about a simple principle. If a company has signed up to pay a certain rate of tax, and the tax rate changes, it clearly benefits from that. We signed up to the deals for taxpayers, however, on the basis that they would pay a certain rate of tax. That tax rate will now change. New clause 1, again, asks just how much the companies are benefiting from the changes.

I know that the Minister will tell me that there are various anti-discriminatory clauses in the PFI and indeed the PF2 contracts. I agree with him. Therefore, how we might start to reclaim some of that excessive profit is a tricky question, but there is a strong case that, if a company has signed up in good faith to a particular rate of tax, surely that is the rate of tax that it should pay. That is written into the contract, it is part of the business case in the Green Book that is made on these sorts of deals. We as taxpayers have an expectation. Indeed, I would expect the Minister to have a series of sums reflecting the amount of money that would be paid back that he would write off against the large sums that I talked about. However, given that the corporation tax situation has moved from some of these companies nominally paying 28% to their paying 19% or less, that is clearly a substantial discount on what they were expected to pay. New clause 1 asks us to do what, frankly, at the moment we do not do as a country—understand what the difference is between what we expected to get in from tax from these companies and what we will get in.

It is always troubling to me that the Treasury does not seem to have a central database either of how much we were paying to take on these loans—particularly the rates of return, which we know are substantially higher than the rate of borrowing on the public sector—or of the taxation these companies are paying back versus what they were expected to pay back. New clause 1 would get to the heart of that matter and it sits alongside amendments 5 and 6 in trying to understand where these companies are making excessive profits from the public sector.

I am sure that the Minister will tell me that this is a dreadful attack on the private sector and that we should not be saying that these companies are ripping the British public off and that they are legal loan sharks. However, I ask him: if he will not accept the amendments, will he commit to gathering the data about how much these companies have paid in tax, how much difference these have made to the value-for-money case for these businesses, and therefore how our communities will be able to pay back the sums involved?

I am sure that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar would love to have £169 million to invest in his local community; there are many worthy causes that I am sure he would support. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden would be interested in the £170 million that I believe Stevenage, near his constituency, will have to pay out to PFI companies. That money could be invested in the public infrastructure that we so desperately need.

I am sure that all of us would agree that we expect these companies to pay their tax, as they signed up to in these contracts, yet it is clear that they do not. So if the Minister is not prepared to accept these incredibly reasonable amendments in this environment, I hope that he will set out precisely what he is going to do to get our tax money back. All of us and all of our constituents need and deserve nothing less.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is again a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Howarth.

I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the amendment, which seeks a review of the effect that the measures we are discussing will have on PFI companies. The Government blithely assert, including in their notes on the Bill, that companies involved in public benefit infrastructure spending are an inherently low risk for tax avoidance. That is an odd claim, especially in the light of what my hon. Friend has said. We know that some PFI companies have engaged in profit shifting to non-UK jurisdictions. It does not make sense to say that just because the profits of a company are extracted from public investment it cannot seek to be paid in a way that is fiscally undesirable.

No one should bemoan the huge public infrastructure investment that the last Labour Government enabled. It was fixing many of the problems left from years of neglect in the public sector. All Governments have taken part in PFI. When PFI was in effect the only game in town, so to speak, many public authorities took up the chance to make the investment they needed; my hon. Friend identified some in my constituency that benefited from such investment. However, we know that some contracts have produced excessive costs for the public sector, where direct borrowing could have produced much lower ongoing costs and provided for more direct influence over the quality of some ancillary services. Therefore, it is right that a review be used to work out whether we should be privileging PFI companies with exemptions from these measures at the same time as knowing that they often benefit from guaranteed profits at the public expense.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I appreciate where the hon. Member for Walthamstow is coming from with the amendments. We support Labour on new clause 1, which calls for a review of how much we are spending and where the money is going. Good points have been well made about how companies are making more of a profit as a result of the changes in corporation tax rates.

On the other amendments, we are concerned about the possible impact that any changes to PFI would have on Scotland. We are still paying off a number of PFI projects in Scotland. I know that people say that all Governments have implemented such projects, but the Scottish Government have moved away from the PFI funding model because the SNP does not support it. We have the Scottish Futures Trust and not-for-profit delivery mechanisms, which mean that profits do not go to private companies.

[Stella Creasy]

To be clear, the evidence of the problems with the PFI model extends to the not-for-profit model. I encourage the hon. Lady to read the work of Mark Hellowell of the University of Edinburgh. No political party can claim the moral high ground when it comes to private finance in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

It is once again a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Before I respond specifically to the amendments tabled by Opposition Members, I will set out the aims of the Bill and some details of how it will work.

Clause 20 and schedule 5 introduce new rules to limit the amount of interest expense and similar financing costs that a corporate group can deduct against its taxable profits. Interest is a deductible expense in the calculation of profit subject to corporation tax. Therefore, there is a risk of groups borrowing excessively in the United Kingdom, with the resulting deductions for interest expense eroding the UK tax base.

The new rules are part of the Government’s wider changes to align the location of taxable profits with the location of economic activity. The rules follow the internationally agreed recommendations from the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, project to tackle tax avoidance by multinational companies. The rules aim to prevent businesses from reducing their taxable profits by using a disproportionate amount of interest expense in the UK.

The schedule introduces a new part into the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 and will raise about £1 billion a year from multinational enterprises and other large companies. The rules take effect from 1 April 2017, as announced in the business tax road map published in 2016 and reconfirmed at the spring Budget this year. Maintaining that commencement date ensures that groups that have already made changes in light of the new rules are not unfairly disadvantaged and that there is no delay in protecting the UK tax base. Given the sophisticated nature of corporate finance, the rules are detailed and technical. However, the core effect of the rules, which aim to match deductions with taxable profits, is relatively simple.

All groups will be able to deduct £2 million in net interest expense a year, so only larger businesses—those with financing costs above that level—can suffer a restriction. Above that threshold, the core rules will restrict interest deductions to a proportion of the group’s UK earnings or the net external expense of the group, whichever is lower. I will discuss the rules in further detail.

First, the fixed ratio rule will limit interest deductions to 30% of the company’s taxable EBITDA—earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation. Secondly, the modified debt cap will limit interest deductions to the net external interest expense of the worldwide group; this rule is consistent with the recommendation in the OECD BEPS report. There are provisions to ensure that the rules will not adversely affect groups that are highly leveraged with third-party debt for genuine commercial reasons. Thirdly, the group ratio rule will allow groups to increase their deductions if their UK borrowing does not exceed a fair proportion of the external borrowing of the worldwide group. In addition, there are public infrastructure rules that provide an alternative but equally effective approach for companies that are highly leveraged because they own and manage public infrastructure assets.

The Bill provides rules to help address fluctuations in levels of net interest expense and EBITDA. Amounts of restricted interest are carried forward indefinitely and may be deducted in a later period if there is a sufficient allowance. Unused interest allowance can also be carried forward, for up to five years.

The Bill introduces additional provisions to ensure that the rules work for certain types of business, such as banks and insurers, joint ventures, securitisation vehicles and real estate investment trusts. There are also rules to deal with particular issues including related parties; leases; payments to charities; the oil and gas tax regime; incentives such as the patent box and research and development tax credits; and double taxation relief. Given the technical nature of the Bill, we need to deal with a wide range of corporate arrangements. We will, as always, continue to keep their detailed implementation under review.

I welcome the opportunity to debate amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. Amendments 5 and 6 propose a review within three months of Royal Assent on the effect of the provisions contained in the new chapter 8 proposed by the schedule on companies with PFI contracts. Legislating for a review of the rules within three months is unnecessary. The Government have already undertaken extensive work and consultation on the issue over the past 18 months. We will continue to monitor the impact of the legislation, and Government officials continue to meet key stakeholders impacted by the rules in the chapter.

Proposed new chapter 8 includes the public infrastructure rules designed to ensure that companies holding public infrastructure assets are not disproportionately affected by the corporate interest restriction. In particular, proposed new section 439 of chapter 8 contains a grandfathering provision for loans entered into by certain companies on or before 12 May 2016. Such companies are highly leveraged as part of their standard business model, given their fixed assets and fixed income flows. The grandfathering ensures that investors who entered into contracts to provide Government services in good faith are not unfairly impacted. That could be the case where the additional tax expense was not factored into original funding models and there is no scope to pass on any of the cost. Given that PFI projects are long-term in nature and provide many of our vital public services, the rules grandfather the treatment of interest payable to related parties to the extent that the loan was agreed prior to the publication, on 12 May 2016, of detailed proposals for the interest restriction rules.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister says that he has met the stakeholders affected and is setting out how those companies might be impacted. Will he clarify which companies his officials have met to discuss these rules?

[Mel Stride]

With respect to the hon. Lady, I do not think I said that I had met all the stakeholders, but as part of their ongoing work in this area officials naturally meet a large range of officials. If she is keen to know exactly who they are and what types of companies, I would be happy to ask my officials to write to her with that information.

The hon. Lady also proposes a new clause, which would require a review within three months of Royal Assent of how tax relief is given for losses, deficits, expenses and other amounts in relation to PFI companies. PFI companies do not obtain any special treatment under the tax rules in the way that losses, deficits, expenses and other amounts are treated. Legislating for a review of these rules in three months is unnecessary. As we debated on Tuesday, the Government have already undertaken extensive work on the treatment of losses and deficits over the past 18 months and through extensive consultation. The Government will continue to monitor the legislation’s impact, and officials continue to meet key stakeholders impacted by the rules in this chapter.

I turn now to some of the more general and specific points that the hon. Lady has raised. In doing so, I should acknowledge the important contribution she has made over a long period in Parliament on the important issues surrounding PFI. She is right to point out that PFI contracts are the creatures of many different Governments. It would be widely accepted that many of the issues that have arisen, and to which she and other Members have alluded, certainly occurred under the watch of the previous Labour Government. She rightly points out that not all of those contracts are perfect. That is evidenced by the fact that this Government have secured a rebate of about £2.5 billion by working with the private sector and raising funds through that approach.

We have had a general discussion about PFI, and proposed chapter 8 gives rise to the question whether PFI infrastructure projects should be treated differently from other projects that would otherwise be subject to the interest restriction. I have two important points to make. First, these are infrastructure projects, so they are, by their very nature, highly leveraged. They are projects where large amounts of interest are often part of the natural, right and proper, way in which they are constructed.

The second point, which in a sense follows from that, is that of proportionality. To what degree does one apply this kind of approach to a business of that particular nature, given that the downstream revenues from PFI arrangements cannot be easily adjusted to accommodate the provisions that would otherwise apply in the Bill?

The hon. Lady raised two specific points. One was related to the Green Book calculations. In 2012 we set up the operational efficiency programme to deliver savings from existing programmes. That brought in £2.5 billion. We also introduced the new PF2 model, to offer better value for money and greater transparency in the operation of these arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am going to call the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who tabled two of the amendments. The hon. Member for Bootle cleverly managed to balance the context and the amendments, but we need speeches that, although they might refer to the context, actually speak to the amendments at hand.

[Stella Creasy]

Be under no illusions, Mr Howarth; I intend very much to speak to the amendments at hand.

The Minister argued, slightly bizarrely, that we already have information about whether the changes would affect PFI companies, because the Government have been able to assess that, yet they are rejecting our call to put that information in the public domain. The Minister said clearly that his officials have met PFI companies, and I asked him to clarify which companies. I hope that when he meets stakeholders he will meet my local hospital, which is dealing with the difficult consequences of PFI deals for its financial position. I would argue that officials who are essentially having to sack nurses to pay back PFI loans are equally stakeholders, so I would be interested to know whether he has met any of them.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Does my hon. Friend have a figure for the total cost of PFI repayments every year to the national health service? That would illustrate the enormous burden of PFI schemes on our health service.

[Stella Creasy]

I can go better than that—

[The Chair]

Order. We do not want too much context.

[Stella Creasy]

Well, this is why how much tax these companies pay matters. I hate to tell the Minister how to do his job, but I have looked at the PFI and public sector comparator documents used to assess the value for money of the deals, and they explicitly talk about the levels of tax that the companies pay and, indeed, look at how those would be traded off against the cost of borrowing to the public sector.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North asks about the £300 billion for which we are now indebted in repayments on the loans, as against the £55 billion of outlay. One reason why we took on the £300 billion was that we expected to get back in tax from the companies money to trade off against it. That was an explicit part of the value-for-money calculations done by the Departments. That is why the Green Book matters. That is why I am slightly troubled when the Minister says that tax treatment is part of the deal, but does not then want to give us those data. He says that his Department has looked at the matter and therefore the amendment is unnecessary. Will he therefore commit simply to publishing the information used to assess whether the exemption was in the public interest? It can be in the public interest only if it does not affect the amount of tax that we get back from the companies to go towards the £300 billion that we will have to pay out as a consequence of signing the contracts.

I encourage the Minister to read the work from the National Audit Office on this issue, and specifically about the tax adjustments made in the contracts and whether that really did get value for money for us, and indeed its assessment of PF2. Far be it from me to suggest that pride comes before a fall, but I think that he will find it as troubling as I do that we have not cracked how best to borrow, given that, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister says, we are always a good bet. Frankly, we never let hospitals or schools go bust, so we always repay our debts. I also encourage my colleagues from north of the border in Scotland to do that, given that the problems also apply to the Scottish Futures Trust. This is about the use of private finance companies. Their tax take is absolutely part of the calculation.

I note, too, that the Minister did not address at all new clause 1 and the levels of tax that the companies signed up to pay. Again, that is very troubling. Either the Minister is telling us that he knows and does not want to tell us, or he does not know and does not care. Either way, we as taxpayers should know and should care, because that money should go towards the £300 billion.

The new clause matters because we know that tax relief on interest paid to shareholders and other affiliates where the debt is held at arm’s length, which is what many of these companies do, has been widely abused, with shareholders injecting debt for the sole purpose of reducing their pre-tax profits and hence the company’s corporation tax. When the Minister gives the tax relief to these particular companies, which he admits are highly leveraged, he is giving them a bonanza. All the amendments do is ask the Government to admit just how much that is, because all of us will have to recognise that that money, which the companies will be able to pay off against their loans, is money that we will have to find to bridge the gap in relation to the £300 billion that we have now committed to paying them. It is entirely in order and within the scope of this legislation, Mr Howarth, that we should ask for that information.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me be very clear that I have absolutely no intention of giving these companies a penny more of taxpayers’ money. I do not wish to get into litigious battles with them about their tearing up their contracts and giving their lawyers an opportunity to claim even more money. Frankly, they have had more than enough from the British taxpayer. I am determined that we can table legislation and show these companies that we are serious about recognising where they have generated excessive profits, where we can learn from the windfall tax of the previous Labour Government, to be able to bring them to the table to renegotiate the costs and get the money back for the British taxpayer so that we can properly invest in infrastructure.

There is another debate to be had about the range of credit available to this country, but with this legislation and the tax breaks that this Government are giving to these companies, it is the taxpayer who will lose out, and we deserve to know by just how much.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I have just two comments. The first is in response to what the Minister said about the extent to which the new measures implement OECD recommendations. The second is a comment about our amendment 28.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, the OECD BEPS recommendations, and specifically recommendation 4, which applies to this area, offer a range of possibilities when it comes to deciding what the write-off can be. The cap is allowed to be between 10% and 30%. Her Majesty’s Government have decided to go with 30%, but it is feasible for states to go down to 10%. When the EU looked at implementing this measure through the anti-tax avoidance directive, which of course applies to us for as long we are still a member of the EU, again a range between 10% and 30% was given. I have not yet heard why the Government have chosen 30% rather than 10%.

On amendment 28, our request for a review is specifically about the rationale for having special provisions for public infrastructure-providing companies. That is in the light of some quite worrying developments occurring around large swathes of British public infrastructure now being owned by firms and in effect provided through debt finance.

One example we touched on in some Finance Bill debates is Thames Water. As the Minister will know, back in 2006 Macquarie bank purchased Thames Water. It did sell it off—after a number of problems, if we are honest—but during that period our water infrastructure was owned by a firm that was in effect debt-financed, and through the Cayman Islands, which is a separate issue. There are genuine questions about whether that model is appropriate. Does it cause additional potential risks to service quality and continuity? What would happen if that debt financing model could not be serviced by one of these firms?

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the nature of these companies based overseas. Does she share my frustration that the Minister seems to think that does not matter because these clauses will only affect companies in the UK while not recognising that those companies have only nominal addresses in the United Kingdom, with their parent companies being based overseas? They are able to trade off the tax exemptions that the Bill will bring in. All of these PFI infrastructure companies may well claim to be UK-based for tax purposes to trade off these incomes, but actually they will be in Guernsey and Jersey, the Cayman Islands and the like. It is a con.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. Indeed, that issue came up in Committee of the Whole House. There needs to be much more muscular engagement in questions around profit shifting between jurisdictions and especially between those that have low or no-tax regimes, where there appears to be a lot of evidence of harmful tax practices.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

As the Minister has indicated, amendment 20 is to the schedule, which is grouped with clause 14. We have a number of concerns about the proposed changes to social investment tax relief, which is why our amendment asks for a review of their effectiveness and impact.

As colleagues will be aware, social investment tax relief is aimed at supporting social enterprises, comprising those businesses that plough their profits—or at least a proportion of them—back into a social and/or environmental mission. With this relief, where investments by individuals are eligible, they can reduce an individual’s income for income tax purposes by almost a third. It is clearly a significant relief and one that, while having many positive impacts, has been suggested as leading to abuses, with the social or environmental impacts from investment in some anecdotal cases being cosmetic rather than actual.

There are also underlying issues about whether there is a level playing field between social enterprises and the public sector when it comes to the delivery of some public services, which could be intensified by the development of additional scope or type of tax reliefs when it comes to social enterprises. Indeed, for those reasons, some people have entirely rejected even the principle of social investment tax relief in the first place. I understand Dame Hilary Blume, director of the Charities Advisory Trust, was concerned about the creation of the relief in the first place, saying it would attract those interested in profits rather than social good to the sector.

In my experience as a constituency MP—and others may share this experience—social enterprises that operate in my constituency, such as the charity Aspire Oxford, undertake work that the Government either have never done or which they have abandoned due to a lack of resources, such as the enormous reductions in support provided through probation services. It is important that organisations such as these, which genuinely deliver additionality, are supported. Nonetheless, in that context, we have a variety of concerns about the currently proposed changes and it is for that reason that we ask for a review. I would be grateful—even if our amendment does not pass—if the Minister could provide answers to a number of these concerns, presently or by letter in the future.

The first concern we have is about the process surrounding these measures. As colleagues will know, rather confusingly, not all social enterprises qualify for social enterprise relief. Predominantly, the relief is focused on community interest companies, charities and community benefit societies. For that reason, before receiving investment, many social enterprises ask HMRC for advance assurance—this topic pops up again—that they will qualify for SITR. I am concerned to have learned from the sector that assessors seem to have been taking decisions already about whether social enterprises will qualify for SITR on the basis of the rules we have in front of us today, which have not yet been passed by Parliament, rather than on the basis of the current rules.

I know the rules would have retrospective impacts: in practice they would be for investments dating from 1 April. It seems strange, however, for assessors to be taking decisions already on the basis of the new rules and this is potentially a disadvantage for social enterprises that are negatively affected by the new rules.

I have also heard concerns about the new treatment of leasing within the new provisions. As I understand it, the Government conceive of leasing as an inherently low-risk activity and therefore not worthy of subsidy, but it is not clear to me that all the implications of this position have been thought through. An example is that of a specialist facility, such as a rundown heritage swimming pool. In fact, many of us may have those in our constituencies—as we know, many have closed. It is very difficult for local authorities to redevelop those facilities in current financial circumstances. We could imagine an example where a social enterprise might want to take on that pool, purchase it, attract investors into that project, but not run the swimming pool themselves as they do not have the expertise to do so. They might then want to have a leasing arrangement with a specialist leisure provider to deliver the services from that swimming pool. The problem with the new changes is that, in this context, even though the risk of that new approach would be reduced because the specialist provider would have more experience of running swimming pools than the social enterprise, the latter would be left in an invidious position, because it would lose the tax break if it engaged in that kind of leasing arrangement.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the importance of trying to make these kind of rules work for the reality of how social investment often happens in our local communities. Does she agree with me that there is also a concern that by excluding asset-leasing, things like community pubs and community land trusts might also be excluded by the Government, probably unintentionally? Many of us know of small community groups that may want to take over pubs in our communities that would be excluded by this measure and unintentionally actioned against. Surely we should be acting on that.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I agree that this could apply to a range of different facilities. In many circumstances, this kind of arrangement is the only way to keep those facilities going. We could see them entirely disappear—we all know about the sad disappearance of community pubs in our areas—so I am grateful to her for making that point.

In addition to those potential issues, we are also concerned about the differential treatment of social enterprises by age, with the £1.5 million cap being lifted for social enterprises under seven years old. Will the Minister explain why there is precisely this seven-year limit? It may in practice be that local authorities are relying on well-established, well-run and highly experienced social enterprises to help to provide essential services and facilities in conditions of extreme budget cuts, but it is those older enterprises that are potentially disadvantaged by this scheme. I hope that we are going to learn the exact decision-making process on this seven-year cut-off point. If it is specifically to advantage younger social enterprises, why is that the point? Is it the case that youth is being viewed as a proxy for the ability to take on risky activities? If so, where is the evidence basis for that?

I point again to the example of Aspire in my constituency that operates a range of programmes, including one that supports offenders going into work—people who would not normally necessarily be taken on by different employers. Surely that is a highly risky activity, but it is one at which they—as an established social enterprise—excel. Age does not necessarily appear to be a good proxy for the ability to take on riskier activities. If this seven-year cut-off is not there to encourage younger social enterprises, then why has it been instituted? We need more information on this.

Finally, we feel that additional evidence on the effectiveness of the anti-avoidance clauses within the new provisions is required. Social enterprises in the voluntary sector have a long history in areas such as hospice care, specialist domestic violence and mental health services where they have often genuinely driven innovation. Other social enterprises, such as those I mentioned earlier, have merely donated some of their profits to charity, rather than having a genuinely social or environmental mission. May we have more clarification on how abuse will be identified and dealt with?

[Mel Stride]

Compared with typical companies, social enterprises face greater difficulties in accessing the funding they need to grow and develop. Social investment tax relief provides a number of generous tax reliefs to encourage individuals to invest in social enterprises that deliver social or community benefits. The current limit to the amount of investment that a social enterprise can receive through SITR is around £300,000 over three years. We announced in 2014 that we would look to expand the scheme, and we are now doing so.

The changes made by schedule 1 will increase the investment limit to £1.5 million over the lifetime of all social enterprises using SITR. In order to target the relief more effectively at the social enterprises that most struggle to attract investment, those under seven years old will no longer be bound by the three-year rolling investment limit of £300,000. I think this addresses the issues raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East about why the period is seven years. There is a greater vulnerability when social enterprises start up and they are fresh and young. They have yet to have a track record on which they can build, in order to grow. For those we are removing the roaming £300,000 over three years requirement. Social enterprises older than seven years can still use SITR for investment up to the three-year rolling investment limit of £300,000, subject to the lifetime limit of £1.5 million.

Schedule 1 makes a number of other changes to ensure that the scheme is well targeted at activities that will genuinely achieve socially beneficial aims, and provides value for money. That includes targeting SITR at social enterprises with fewer than 250 employees. Some activities have always been excluded from the relief so that it is not used as a tax-advantage route for low-risk investment. The excluded activities list will be updated to exclude a number of low-risk activities, including leasing assets and raising finance to lend on to others.

I agreed wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Oxford East’s assertion about the importance of these social enterprises. She mentioned Aspire, for example, in her own constituency and many of us can think of similar organisations in our constituencies. On the more detailed process points that she was interested in, particularly around HMRC and advanced assurances, I am happy to write to her.

On the specific issue of leasing, allowing those activities to benefit from SITR would risk diverting finance away from higher risk social enterprises. We must not lose sight of the fact that the whole purpose of this scheme is to encourage those kinds of organisations and all the good works that they do, which might not otherwise come forward for the reason of being high risk. Of course, those organisations struggle the most to raise finance. Leasing assets typically provides a reliable income stream, which makes it a lower risk activity. Allowing social enterprises to raise money to lend on to other enterprises would be complex to administer and would leave the scheme open to misuse.

[Stella Creasy]

As a Co-op, as well as Labour, MP, I am rather passionate about the idea of social investment. The Minister seems to be a little short-sighted about the idea of assets—after all, there are many people looking at running community pubs, for instance, which is a great example of a community asset that we might want to support. I would not see that as an example of a low-risk venture. Surely, if he accepts our amendment, we can look at some of those issues and make sure that he is not missing out on some of the things he would like to see investment in because of a concept of risk that is rather narrow, rather than recognising some of the boundaries of co-operative and social investment.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I guess there is a trade-off between getting very detailed and more precise in where we target these kinds of reliefs and, on the other hand, sometimes having complexity and confusion. It can be difficult to winkle out the precise anomalies that she may be alluding to. However, I can reassure her that, under the EIS scheme, many pubs, including community pubs, can qualify. They may be excluded under certain circumstances within the SITR scheme, but under EIS she will find that there are at least possibilities.

On the general issue of anti-avoidance, we are seeking to avoid situations where these schemes—whether they are EIS, SITR or VCTs—are simply being used as places to preserve capital at very little risk and to give a tax return as a consequence of the scheme. It is important that we have tight, sensible and effective avoidance measures in place.

Finally, further provisions to align the rules more closely with the enterprise investment scheme, including anti- abuse provisions, will also be introduced. Amendment 20 would require a review of the effects of the scheme, including the effectiveness of the anti-abuse provision and other changes being made by schedule 1. The Government have already committed to a full review of SITR within two years of its expansion. An early review would make it impossible to adequately gauge the effectiveness of the provisions that we are introducing now. Further, these anti-abuse provisions were introduced in direct response to HMRC becoming aware of the creation of aggressive tax-planning structures designed to exploit this relief. We estimate that around 800 social enterprises will benefit from the relief over the next five years. By 2021-22, SITR is forecast to cost £65 million per year, £30 million more than if the scheme was not enlarged.

We have had an interesting debate on the scheme. As we have already committed to a full review, I ask the hon. Member for Oxford East to withdraw amendment 20. Schedule 1 will increase the amount of investment that social enterprises can raise through SITR making it attractive to a wider range of enterprises and investors. Other changes will ensure that the scheme is well targeted and delivers value for money.

Finance Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

The idea is to provide a better-quality service, applying modern technology and techniques to serve those who need the scheme. I am sure that the Minister will be interested in any detailed criticisms the hon. Gentleman may have. This Government have spent a lot of our public money on dealing with abuse on the tax side, because they rightly believe that we should be fair, crack down on tax abuse and ensure that people do not cheat the welfare system. Neither is a good thing to do. If we want a sensible financial balance, we should surely be fair to both sides by ensuring that we are not cheated out of public money and that we are not short-changed by people who break the law on tax.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman was waxing lyrical about corporation tax earlier. Of course, private finance initiatives—with companies that Members on both sides of the House have concerns about—have been beneficiaries of the Government’s changes to corporation tax. Those companies benefit from the lower corporation tax espoused by the right hon. Gentleman, even though they signed contracts with the Government to pay a higher rate of corporation tax that was part of the value-for-money assessment for those contracts. If he wants to get the money owed to the public sector, does he recognise that corporation tax may need to be amended in certain ways and with some companies to reflect that?

[John Redwood]

The hon. Lady is very brave to mention PFI because that was a failed experiment by the Labour Government, who got through an awful lot of public money needlessly by not doing good deals with the private sector and not understanding that they had to be more careful in the kinds of contract they signed.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[John Redwood]

I will give her another go.

[Stella Creasy]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about PFI. I would like to hear him talk about Private Finance 2, which is this Government’s proposal, including £23 billion of infrastructure investment that will be done under the same contracts, and which therefore faces the same challenges. Many Labour Members recognise the need to deal with PFI. I would hope to hear the right hon. Gentleman—a man who has been so proud of the role of corporation tax—deal with them equally rather than avoid the question. I am sure that his constituents would like that too.

[John Redwood]

I did not avoid the question at all. I pointed out that most PFI contracts were signed under the Labour Government. When I was a Secretary of State, I remember being offered a PFI route to financing a new hospital. I looked at the numbers and did not think they worked, so I said, “I’d rather finance it in the normal way by public borrowing because that would clearly be cheaper and give us more control.” That was a bit of a surprise to my officials but they quite liked the advice I gave them on the subject. It is the job of a Minister to understand these things, but a lot of Labour Ministers did not understand the contracts they were signing, and those contracts had weaknesses. If the hon. Lady has problems with contracts that Ministers are currently signing, it is her job as an Opposition MP—she will not be shy about doing this—to give chapter and verse. She has not been specific, but we do not have time to turn this into a debate about individual contracts. I am sure that my ministerial friends, particularly in the Treasury spending department, would be very interested to hear where she thinks they have gone wrong. However. we probably need to move on.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[John Redwood]

Oh, if she really wants to intervene again, she may.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I am pleased to hear his concerns. I note his intention to increase public sector borrowing. I repeat that the Government are talking about £23 billion of infrastructure spending financed by this Bill. They are looking at PF2, which is “exactly the same” as PFI. They are not my words, but those of the National Audit Office. Will he join me in supporting amendments to the Bill to ensure that those companies pay their fair share of tax and the public sector gets the money it deserves?

[John Redwood]

I have no evidence that makes me believe they will not pay their fair share of tax. I am sure that my ministerial friends have heard the hon. Lady’s point and will look carefully at the issue. It is good that a lot of our future infrastructure programme will be privately financed, but I always apply a simple test. If the thing is going to be privately financed, I want to ensure that the private sector is bearing significant risk in return for the reward it wants to earn. I do not like phoney PFIs, whereby the private sector cajoles the public sector into taking all or most of the risk while giving a higher reward than one would get on a normal Government bond in order for the contract to be signed. There were quite a lot of those under the Labour Government and the taxpayer is much the poorer as a result. It is part of the reason that we did not get the gains in public sector productivity that we would like to achieve. If we do not discipline the big investment spend, we do not drive forward the productivity gains that we clearly need to make across a large public sector.

In conclusion, the best way to raise the extra money we need to pay wages and improve public services—an aim that is shared across the Chamber, contrary to Labour’s belief—is to drive further growth in the economy so that more people are in jobs to pay tax, and so that more companies are doing things here and making profits here on which they can pay tax. We need a series of tax rates that are not too complicated and that are low enough to be sensible so that we are internationally competitive. Then individuals and companies will have every incentive to do more, invest more, work harder and work smarter in order to carry the economy forward. I trust that is what my hon. and right hon. Friends will be doing.

I do have some worries about the length of modern Finance Bills. It is useful to have another doorstop, but it is a bit of a barrier to our reading every page and giving it the credit that it undoubtedly deserves. It would be good to see whether we could have a period of fewer and simpler taxes so that we do not need quite so much language in Finance Bills. It would also certainly be good to look at what one can learn from the success of raising more revenue from richer income tax earners by going from 50% to 45% and getting more revenue out of companies by going from 28% to 19%. We could apply that principle more generally to other taxes because we would then have a win-win situation. We would have more money for our public services, more economic growth, more people in jobs and more people keeping more of the money they earn. That might make for happier constituents, and that is my main aim in being here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. By the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not think that it would be out of order for me to make some brief remarks about something other than the Finance Bill, given that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson spent 10 minutes talking about yesterday and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North spent quite some time doing the same.

Let me move on to finance and the essential capability of the Bill, which is, of course, to raise revenue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about that, and of course the central point is about balancing the public finances. I shall not talk about that at length because I was fortunate enough to secure a Westminster Hall debate on the subject which, much like today’s, was well attended, with more than 20 Conservative colleagues and only one Opposition Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). To be fair to him, he spoke extremely well, but he was the only Opposition Back-Bench Member to speak in that debate, which demonstrated that when it comes to balancing the public finances, Opposition MPs are very good at spending money, but not so good at thinking of ways of balancing the books and ensuring that we have sound public finances. That is important because the sound public finances that the Bill helps to put in place will ensure that the country continues to grow and that we can continue to deliver pay rises for people across the country.

[Stella Creasy]

I want to take up the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge. I am sure that he is proud that the previous Government, of which he was part, extended capital gains tax to residential property sales for non-domiciles, so will he join me in suggesting that we close the loophole on commercial property sales? There is one idea that could raise some money for investment in this country.

[Mr Harper]

I am very pleased that the measures in this Bill, which Opposition Front Benchers seem so unwilling to support, raise something like £1.6 billion—I am sure that the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—on top of the £1 billion we have raised from non-doms. Put together, that is £2.6 billion, which is more than the Labour party raised in all the time it was in government. If the hon. Lady compares Labour’s record in government with ours, she will see that we have been much more effective in raising taxes from non-doms to spend on our public services than her Government ever was.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for—

[Mr Harper]

I am sorry; I meant to give way to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting).

[Stella Creasy]

Age before beauty.

[Wes Streeting]

Imagine lacking both!

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we need more international co-operation if we are to curb the excesses of multinational corporations’ power. Does he therefore share my sadness that we are currently driving a coach and horses through the most sophisticated political and economic alliance in the history of the world—the European Union—which gives us that global power and the leadership to tackle those global excesses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) on a wonderful maiden speech. He paints a fantastic picture of a part of the country that I have yet to visit and that clearly has many delights to try, although, on his advice, I will pass on the home-made scones, if I may.

May I offer the hon. Gentleman some advice, as somebody who has been here all of seven years? He will find watching “Monty Python” a very useful guide to what goes on in Parliament. Sometimes this Chamber can feel like the argument clinic, where some people have been paid to argue. The Brexit Secretary also appears to be taking his lead from the Spanish inquisition in his approach to the negotiations, and he is equally effective. Ultimately, Brexit is really like the big Monty Python foot, slamming down on everything we do in the Chamber in this Parliament.

That is why this Finance Bill is so important and why I look forward to the many hours we will spend debating it in Committee. It is vital that we do not let Brexit deter us from dealing with some of the many problems we have in our country. The test we must therefore set for all proposed legislation in this House is, does it progress the needs of our communities and our country? I have to say that I find this Bill wanting in many different ways. The Government seem to have an economic plan based on personal debt, not UK productivity.

This week, I heard the Chancellor desperate for ideas. I want to be a helpful contributor to this House and to our debates, so in my speech today I shall set out for Ministers—I hope they will listen to some of our ideas—some suggestions on how we could get this country on to a sound economic footing. One of the Ministers is a former sparring partner of mine on the Public Accounts Committee, so he will know my personal commitment to value for money for the British public.

However, we first need to understand the context in which the Finance Bill is proposed—how we got to this position, why the legislation represents so many missed opportunities and why my colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), was right to talk about people feeling the squeeze. We know that for many of our constituents there is too much month at the end of the money. Therefore, when we are looking at tax measures, we are looking at how we might help our constituents, and we have to ask first about those who will bear the brunt of a Government who do not do things to tackle the impact on their lives of rising inflation, stagnant wages, low productivity and, indeed, that Brexit Monty Python foot.

Our country has an eye-watering £200 billion of personal debt. In every single legislative measure we make we must ask what we are doing to reduce that debt, because the consequences for so many are so great. My concern is that that debt is so high because the Government are balancing the books out of the pockets of our constituents.

In 2010, I sat on the Opposition Benches—a new MP, like the hon. Member for Moray—and listened to a Chancellor promise that the deficit would be eliminated. In 2016, I read the note from the Office for Budget Responsibility that recognised that the Government had broken their own deficit rule. The hon. Member for Moray talked about being a referee. We are not even on yellow cards with this Government as regards economic competency—it is a straight red card, as far as I am concerned.

Previous Chancellors have claimed time and again that they would get a grip on the public finances. Time and again, they have moved the goalposts. They changed the targets in 2014 to 2017 for eliminating the debt. In 2015, they changed the target to running a surplus in normal times by 2020-21. Then, in 2016, they changed the target again to reduce net borrowing to below 2%. Now, in the Tory manifesto, it has changed to 2026, and we are hearing that in the autumn Budget it could be changed to 2027. Last year we borrowed £52 billion, and it is expected that this year we will borrow another £60 billion. So forgive me, but I will not take any lectures from Government Members about fiscal responsibility. If, in these seven years, you had been on a business board and the finance director had come to you every single year, as Conservative Chancellors have, asking for more money because yet again they have not got to grips with how they were spending it, you would sack them. That is certainly what I hope the British public will do.

At the same time as we are borrowing more and failing to tackle the debt, our productivity is worse. I agree with the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is sadly no longer in his seat, that this is a challenge we cannot ignore, whatever is going on in Europe. A typical French person need only work Monday to Thursday compared with a typical Brit, and it is the same for Germany, which has a 29% higher GDP per hour than the UK. We have seen a lost decade of productivity in this country, and our communities and businesses are paying, so that we are now in an extraordinary position where it is more expensive than ever before to employ somebody, despite the squeeze on wages. Stagflation is upon us. Inflation is up by 12% since 2010, but wages are down by 6%. It is little wonder that so many in our communities are borrowing.

When we come to legislate on income tax or on the increasing numbers of people who are self-employed—the small business owners whom we all cherish in our communities—let us ask what we can do to help them. Let us not be blind to these challenges, or to the inequality that is stubborn in our country. During this time, the people who benefit from many of the measures in such legislation have done rather well. In 2000, FTSE 100 chief executives were paid, on average, £1.4 million a year. Now, it is £4.5 million—a 220% increase. That is not market forces, but it shows a failure by us as a country to invest in people. Our productivity reveals that challenge, and the personal debt of our communities is paying for it.

Ministers may ask what I would do to raise money—we have heard that question before—so let me give them some examples of things that we could put into this Bill. We could, for example, look at clause 16 on capital gains tax. Earlier I asked Government Members whether they might join me on this. After all, there has been much talk about tackling the issues of non-doms. Indeed, the previous Chancellor changed the legislation to put capital gains tax on to residential property sales, but now there is a loophole around commercial property sales. Let me reassure Government Members that if they choose to follow our advice on this matter, it has been tackled in the United States, in Canada and in Australia. It is not crazy economics but sensible planning.

We could apply the same rate of tax on carried interest to hedge fund managers. Why are they not paying the same rates of income tax as the cleaners who clean their offices—still, on this Government’s watch, seven years on? We could change business property relief, too often used to avoid inheritance tax, restricting it to small businesses and perhaps bringing in a cap of, say, £5 million, so that people do not use that to avoid taxation. We could deal with commercial real estate in cases where people are avoiding the 5% stamp duty by putting it into companies. Those are all things that could be put into clause 16 to raise money and to be fair about who is paying all the taxes that are avoided.

Clause 69 talks about gathering information. We should be dealing with the information about the debts that our communities are based around. Forty-one per cent. of consumer debt is on credit cards. Hon. Members should talk to the people in their communities who are now called zombie debtors, paying the interest but not the capital on the money that they owe. They are borrowing to stay afloat because their wages have not risen, and they are borrowing for basics—to put food on their table, to keep a roof above their head, and to put petrol in their car to get to their jobs where they are not getting the pay rise that they deserve. Nothing in this Bill will tackle the squeeze on them from that debt or help the third of people who are now in debt because they are behind on credit card repayments. Clause 69 could introduce an FCA consultation, as despite the fact it is looking at credit card debt it is not considering the lessons that Ministers could learn from the cap on high-cost credit companies. When some people are paying £2.50 for every £1 they are borrowing in this way to stay afloat, it is time to extend the cap on high-cost credit and payday loans to credit card companies. We could do that in this Bill; we could certainly gather the information on the impact it would have.

We could also look at the creditors we as a country owe. Members on both sides of the House will know of my interest in private finance initiatives and my recognition that Governments of all colours have used them and continue to use them. I note that Ministers have talked about the £23 billion they wish to invest in infrastructure and I am sad that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is not in the Chamber given the concern we share about whether private finance is the best way to do that. Of the additional money put into the NHS in the spending review, 22% will leach out to PFI companies as profit, and every constituency in this country has one of these deals.

Let me give an example of the kind of money we are talking about. The company that owns University College Hospital in London has made pre-tax profits of £190 million out of the £735 million that we as taxpayers have paid it. That is enough money to build another hospital outright. This country now owes £300 billion in PFI debts on projects that should have cost £55 billion. Nobody in this House can be smug about PFI. When PF2 is as expensive and the preferred model for how the Government intend to invest in infrastructure, Members on both sides should be asking whether their communities can avoid such contracts.

With eight companies owning 92% of the equity stakes in the hospital sector, there is certainly more work to be done to look into them. Indeed, the Bill gives an exemption to the very companies for the interest that they pay on shares. These companies signed deals with the public sector to pay a certain rate of corporation tax and to commit to paying UK taxes. Indeed, the value for money assessments of the deals was predicated on that, and I note that the Government have not updated the value for money deal to take account of this information from 2013, despite promising more than four years ago that they would.

Schedule 10 to the Bill allows those companies to claim back the interest without the cap. How can we, as a society, give these companies more money through that investment relief as we see our public sector struggling and that money being leached out of it? Surely we should change that, and I hope that Members from all parties will listen and support changes to proposed new section 439.

While Brexit is a Monty Python foot, for many of our small businesses VAT is their biggest compliance issue. Many of them trade in Europe and therefore have to reclaim VAT from other countries. The clock is ticking for us to leave the European Union and the lack of information in this legislation about how companies will manage VAT post-Brexit is alarming. In particular, articles 170 and 171 of the Council of Ministers’ 2006 directive—I hope that the Minister is writing this down—are matched by section 39 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. That allows companies in Britain to seamlessly reclaim VAT through intra-EU legislation. Those options will be gone for our companies when we leave the European Union unless we have alternative arrangements, so when the Government are making legislation through part 4 of the Bill on VAT, the lack of any correlation between the 14th directive and the importance of aligning those measures so that businesses have a seamless transition and can be confident that they can manage their VAT if they trade with other countries is very frightening.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady’s point about VAT and the arrangements that may or may not pertain when we leave the European Union will be dealt with in the upcoming customs and excise Bill.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for that point, but obviously the Bill is about Making Tax Digital and the intra-EU process is digitised. That is what makes it so seamless for so many companies. When we are making legislation about making VAT a digital entity and working online, surely we should be joining these things up to make it as easy as possible for our constituents who have to deal with these issues, rather than separating it out. My point is simply that this Bill is now coming towards the House at the same time as those negotiations are happening. Our constituents deserve clarity on how these things are going to work together.

That applies particularly to our self-employed constituents. Clause 64 could help many of them who have to deal with the errors relating to their welfare entitlement and their tax entitlement. We know that 18% of self-employed people get tax credits, compared with 10% of people who are employed, yet there is nothing in the Bill to help them. I am sure that my colleague—another gentleman from the SNP, whose constituency is I am sure as beautiful as Moray but unfortunately I have forgotten what it is—would agree that we could help those people through this legislation by joining up the way in which the state works with self-employed people. Issues such as how they deal with VAT, with universal credit and with insurance will all be covered in the Bill, but there is an absence of ideas from the Government on how to help those people.

The Government also seem to be overlooking some of the poorest people in our society. I know this because, 18 months ago, I took part in the consultation on tips, gratuities and service charges—the disguised remuneration that the Government are so concerned about—yet, 18 months on, we are no further forward on finding out what the Government are going to do to prevent some of the poorest workers in our retail industries from being ripped off by employers who dip into their tips and use them to prop up their businesses. I have given examples of this to the Treasury and to HMRC, and these issues could have been dealt with in this Bill, but there is nothing there. There is nothing in the Bill to protect workers who get their tips through an electronic system or to ensure that their employers are not taking a surcharge from them. There is nothing in the legislation that even gives a legal right to a payslip—a very basic piece of information that would help to stop those people being exploited.

Those 10 ideas reflect the things we could have done, through this Bill, to help the poorest hard-working people in our communities who will be stamped on by that Brexit “Monty Python” foot. I look at the gaps in the Bill and at the ease with which non-doms will slip through the loopholes, and I see a Government who are not only running out of ideas but running out of road on Brexit. God willing, with the work that we will do, they will also run out of time soon.

Economy and Jobs

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am always happy to go to Southend, but the story that my hon. Friend tells is being repeated up and down the country in constituencies represented by Members on both sides of the House.

The shadow Chancellor complains that growth has not benefited the less well-off. That was at the core of his argument today, but he is wrong. The basic state pension is up by £1,250 a year. Under a Conservative Government, income inequality is at a 30-year low. The poorest households in the UK have seen their wages rise more since 2010 than in any other country in the G7 and, thanks to the Conservative national living wage, those in full-time work on the minimum wage have seen their pay boosted by £1,400 a year. He presents our economic success as a bubble that benefits only London and the south-east, but he is wrong again. Today the economy is growing fastest in the north-west, wages are rising fastest in the west midlands, productivity is growing fastest in Northern Ireland, and unemployment is falling fastest in Scotland. That is a good news story across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, benefiting all the regions and all the nations.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The figure of £1,400 is what Northern Irish women were having to spend to get an abortion here in England, so it is welcome that the Government are now saying that they will correct this injustice. However, the Chancellor will know, as everyone knows, that the devil will be in the detail. Will he therefore make a commitment on behalf of the Government to meet me and representatives of organisations such as Marie Stopes, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and the London Irish Abortion Campaign to look at how we can turn this into a reality, so that those women in Northern Ireland who have finally had their voices heard today can use these services as soon as possible?

[Mr Hammond]

I say to the hon. Lady: please read the letter that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities has sent out. We will be giving additional funding to her Department so that she can make a grant to the external organisations that will provide those services. I think that the hon. Lady will be satisfied when she has read the letter and understood the details. If she is not, I will be happy to meet her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stella Creasy to move amendment (d).

[Stella Creasy]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to all the Members who have supported the rights of Northern Irish women to have equal access to abortion. I am delighted by today’s announcement from the Government and satisfied by the commitments that I have had from the Minister responsible to work with the sector. On that basis, I am happy not to move the amendment today. Let us send a message to women everywhere that in this Parliament their voices will be heard and their rights upheld.

[Mr Speaker]

We come next to amendment (g).

Amendment proposed: at the end of the Question to add:

“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech does not rule out withdrawal from the EU without a deal, guarantee a Parliamentary vote on any final outcome to negotiations, set out transitional arrangements to maintain jobs, trade and certainty for business, set out proposals to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market, set out clear measures to respect the competencies of the devolved administrations, and include clear protections for EU nationals living in the UK now, including retaining their right to remain in the UK, and reciprocal rights for UK citizens.”—(Mr Umunna.)

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 33), That the amendment be made.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

I look forward to hearing the views of other Members. I hope that Ministers will, in particular, reflect on the case that I have made for amendment 2. If they are not willing to shift on this issue, I will seek your leave, Mr Speaker, to divide the House on it.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It will come as no surprise to many people in this House that I am here in full support of my Co-op party colleagues on this matter, and in full support of the vital importance of supporting our credit unions because of the debt tsunami that is coming our way as a nation. Some people may think that it is one of my greatest hits to talk about personal debt and the scourge of the high-cost lenders. The credit unions have always been very much part of the answer to this, and I support amendment 2 on that basis. It is absolutely critical, with the debt tsunami that is coming towards us, that we act to support the credit union movement as a vital component of helping people.

For too many people in our nation, debt is a part of life. There is simply too much month for their money. That has been the case for many years, but the problems are becoming endemic, to the extent that people may not even realise the level of debt that they have. For other people, it may be all too clear: two out of five people are very worried about their level of personal debt. Let me be clear that we are talking about unsecured personal debt. These are not people who are just worrying about their mortgages; these are people who are worrying about the day-to-day cost of everyday living.

For 54% of people who are struggling, the cost of food is the problem—literally, the cost of putting food on the table as well as keeping a roof over their heads and those of their families. For 30% of people, the problem is the cost of energy. Those people will look at the weather forecast fearfully as the temperature drops, knowing that they simply cannot afford to put money in the meter to keep their families warm. Increasingly, people are in debt because of their debt: 22% of people are struggling because of credit card repayment debt.

That is everyday Britain. That is the kind of country we have become—a country where debt is so commonplace that people are not just waving but drowning in it. It is the responsibility of all of us to act. We must not simply give people debt advice, or shrug our shoulders and see this as part of how our economy works. We must ask whether there are things we can do to help people to manage their debts.

The debt tsunami will only become worse as we head into 2017. We all recognise that inflation is likely to rise from 1% to possibly 4%, some experts suggest. The cost of food and basic goods such as energy is going to get higher, not lower. So many people’s wages have been frozen for so many years that in 2017 the gap between the start of the month and the end of the month will feel very large. That is why we have to be pragmatic. Pragmatism is about offering people good options for managing what little money they have, and that is where the credit union movement comes into its own. When the Government want to encourage saving, it is absolutely vital that instead of excluding the credit union movement, they embrace it and the benefits that it can offer. A quarter of people in this country have no savings at all, so we need to ask ourselves which movement always has its doors open to every citizen, and how we can help it to bridge that gap. That means looking to the credit union movement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has made an admirable case for helping our credit union movement and its work. At the risk of repeating what has been said, I want to echo his words and say that we can do so much more. This scheme and the involvement of credit unions are the start, not the end, of that conversation. My own credit union struggled for many years to get on to the high street in Walthamstow, but what a difference that has made. My credit union struggled for many years to get into workplaces and to work with people, but what a difference doing so can make.

Councils around the country, such as Southampton, are working to give people access to a credit union as savers, in return for helping those who would otherwise have gone—let us say it—to a payday lender to get the money that they needed. That sort of work enables us to link communities together. It is crucial that we see credit unions as being not just about borrowing, but about saving. We must recognise that saving enables us to support wider social objectives in a local community.

That is why this omission must be corrected and why Co-operative MPs are standing here tonight to try to get the Government to think again about excluding credit unions from the Help to Save scheme. Instead, we ask the Government to embrace credit unions by accepting the amendment. I join my hon. Friend in saying that if we do not get support from the Government for this change, we will seek to divide the House.

We want to send a message. We know that people will have to borrow. When 2017 looks as dire as it does, with inflation rising, people’s wages still stalling and the cost of living continuing to rise, we have to make sure that people have sensible borrowing options. They also need to have sensible saving options, and the credit union movement is the answer. It is the solution for people who might not have gone anywhere else. If we can get them into a credit union, we can start dealing with their debts and getting them to save.

This is a critical time for our country’s debt portfolio. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, a debt tsunami is heading our way. Let us not turn our backs on it. Let us be sensible about what we can do to help, and let us make credit unions part of the solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it would be pre-emptive of me to make such a commitment at this stage. However, we have been clear that we think that credit unions have a big role to play. The primary legislation does not preclude them from being part of a multiple provider model in future. Indeed, my officials have been in constructive discussions with the credit union movement throughout the passage of the Bill. We are working with the credit union sector to ensure that the final design of Help to Save meets the needs of the target audience. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is looking forward to meeting the hon. Member for Harrow West and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) to discuss the issue further with the Association of British Credit Unions. Therefore, this is not about excluding the credit union movement. We are in regular, constructive discussion with credit unions. We just feel at this stage that the amendment would not allow us to offer that simple nationwide model on the introduction of Help to Save.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for what she is saying. Our concern is that savings are a critical part of credit unions’ ability to deliver the services that they provide. Her argument does not preclude the amendment that Co-op MPs have tabled. The conversations that she is talking about could then happen. There has been no suggestion that there would be any legislative bar. She is making the case for accepting the amendment in saying that it is exactly what she wants to do in future.

Private Finance 2/Private Finance Initiative

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Most MPs can show in their constituencies where there are rotting floors, outdated buildings and potholes. Some may even have made a website about it, but the truth is that this is no laughing matter. We know that our schools in this country are falling apart, and that investment in our education buildings is 18% lower in 2014 than it was in 2009. Britain is now ranked 24th by the World Economic Forum for the quality of its infrastructure, down from 19th in 2006, and we cannot see this getting any better. Indeed, spending on infrastructure has nose-dived since Brexit.

Whatever some may say about fixing these problems, all of it has to be paid for, and Governments of all persuasions, including the previous Labour Government as well as the current Government, have used private finance to build. It is the equivalent of getting a mortgage or even remortgaging our home to pay for a new roof or an extension. Crucially in these deficit-denying times, it is seductive not only because it spreads payments for new schools, hospitals and stations and their management over decades or more, but because it keeps them off the books.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

According to a report of 2014, in Northern Ireland there were some 39 PFI projects with a staggering total cost of £7.3 billion for the maintenance and so forth. Does the hon. Lady agree that any further PFI must be an absolute last resort and indeed should only be permissible in cases of extreme need?

[Stella Creasy]

I hope to convince the hon. Gentleman that there may be many alternatives to PFI, because the question for us is: at what cost have we engaged in this borrowing? We now pay £10 billion a year in PFI repayments, equating to £3,400 for every man, woman and child in Britain. These projects are worth £57 billion, but we are committed to paying back £232 billion by 2050.

It is clear that PFI has addressed some of the project management issues we had in the public sector that made it so bad at building. As the National Audit Office highlights, it has dramatically cut late delivery of projects and overspending on buildings, but as the Treasury Committee points out, it is “sub-optimal value for money”.

One hospital was charged £52,000 to demolish a £750 shelter for smokers, and a school had to pay £302 for a plug socket to be replaced, five times the cost of the equipment it wanted to plug into it. In my constituency of Walthamstow, we have seen first-hand the damage done. My local hospital, Whipps Cross, is part of the Barts health foundation, which has the largest UK PFI deal, at £1.1 billion. By 2049 the amount paid back will be £7 billion. Last year alone the trust shelled out £148 million, equivalent to the salaries of 6,000 nurses, of which half was the interest paid on the loan. Its deficit of £90 million has led managers to downgrade nursing posts. It is little wonder the Care Quality Commission placed my local hospital into special measures as the quality of care declined.

The Minister will, I have no doubt, say his Government have reviewed PFI and made cuts to the costs, renegotiating to buy fewer lightbulbs and to do less cleaning, saving us a whole £1.6 billion out of about £220 billion, but as the NAO has pointed out, no one has really considered whether private finance itself is value for money.

Tonight I want to ask three simple questions: whether the terms of PFI—the rates we pay to borrow this way—are the best we as taxpayers can get to build schools and hospitals; whether even now we can save money on the costly deals that have been signed by Governments of all persuasions, and which are draining our public services of much-needed money; and above all whether the Government are doing enough to secure the competition for our business as taxpayers.

Of course it is hard to answer those questions without the data on what we are paying. I know that the Government do not have those data, because I have asked. I tried asking all the hospitals around the country what rate they were paying, because on 8 February this year Treasury Ministers told me that they do not hold those data centrally. Most NHS trusts refused to disclose the information, claiming that it was commercially sensitive, but those that did were very revealing. Their data showed that, in December 1994 under John Major’s Government, two PFIs in Durham—one for the Dryburn district hospital and one for the Bishop Auckland general hospital—had rates of return of 15% and 18% respectively. In comparison, the 10-year gilt rate was just over 8% at the time. In December 2002, the Crosshouse maternity hospital in Kilmarnock was rated at 16%, while a month later Edmonton acute services were rated at 14%. The gilt rate was 4.6% at that time. In March 2010, the Leeds Wellbeing Centre offered a return of 14% and the Liverpool University hospital redevelopment offered 11%. The long-term gilt rate was then 4.2%.

Some people will argue that we cannot make a direct comparison with gilt rates, so let me flag up the fact that equity returns on the stock market have averaged between 5% and 6% per annum over the past 30 years. It is therefore clear that PFI investors got a great rate, and that was no accident. Critically, research from Edinburgh University shows that these rates do not vary as other premiums do in our financial markets, and that they stay well above the cost of other forms of funding. So public bodies might know full well that the premiums are high, but if that is the return that the market expects for managing the projects and there is no alternative, there is not much they can do without the Government’s help.

I should also point out that those are the rates for when the contracts were signed. As we now know, much profit has been made by selling the debts on. The South London Healthcare NHS Trust, which collapsed, had two large PFI contracts, one of which was offering investors annual returns of 71%. Most PFI contracts were let on an expectation of an already high rate of return of 15% to 17%, but refinancing has seen some returns to investors rise to over 70%.

In 2007, a new standard contract clause was created to allow authorities to request this financial information in order to track the returns that investors were creating. However, there is little evidence that the clause has been used or even that the Government have promoted it, so it is hard for us to see just how much taxpayers’ money is being recycled into higher payments for investment funds rather than into infrastructure for the UK. Again, no central database exists.

We might not know what we are paying, but we do know who we are paying, and it is often the same companies, with 45% of projects funded by the same people. Firms such as Dalmore Capital, Semperian, Kajima, Innisfree and Barclays crop up time and again, and they often invest together too. This dominance by a small group of companies matters because this Government are continuing to use their services in their proposed replacement for PFI, known as PF2. PF2 separates out the service element—the building management—from the capital, which involves the building of the project. So far, so good. Those lightbulbs might be replaced after all, if their cost is not connected to the cost of building the schools.

However, PF2 is supposed to attract more long-term investors by increasing the requirement for equity—the most expensive bit of the deal—potentially making it even more expensive to the public purse than PFI. It also expects us as taxpayers to take on more—not enough to be in charge of the project, but more to cover the cost. So it is not that different from PFI. It is still about us borrowing money from private companies to build things, at rates that are not transparent or competitive with the alternative sources of finance that we could raise.

Are there better ways to borrow to build? Certainly the calculations used by the Government in the Green Book to compare the cost of these deals with public spending have not made that question easier to answer. They set the value of public sector borrowing at 3.5% real and 6 % nominal since 2003, despite the cost of public borrowing being well below that for over a decade. The Treasury Select Committee has suggested that the Government review the Green Book, but it is not clear that the Government have heard that message. Will the Minister tell us whether PF2 is using the same calculations as PFI, at the very time when the cost of borrowing to the public sector is even lower? The Green Book also includes the shadow price of tax—the money that private companies will pay in tax in the UK as a result of getting this business. That money is set against the cost of borrowing from those companies to decide whether the deal is better than using public money to fund a project.

The lack of information about such projects means that the Government are simply unable to verify whether the tax presumptions are accurate. The NAO suggests not. The companies themselves continue to be sited overseas. Innisfree and Palio Partners are sited in Guernsey, and Semperian is registered in Jersey. PF2 will do nothing to tackle that or to stop the resale of shares in such deals, which make more money by taking advantage of the fact that Governments do not default. What does the Minister make of the bosses of the Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, who admitted that they could not stop Carillion, investors in the PF2 for the Midland Metropolitan hospital, from selling on its equity investment to generate the kind of profits that we saw under PFI?

At a time when huge spending cuts are being threatened and when the NHS faces a financial shortfall of £20 billion by 2020 alone, to continue to pay inflated rates to rich investors is to continue to ignore the problems. A quarter of single-tier and county councils now spend the equivalent of 10% of their revenue on debt servicing. The answer to the first question is no; private deals are not always a good deal. We therefore need to answer a second question: if we cannot get out of them, can we renegotiate? Can we consolidate to reduce the repayments and put the savings back into front-line services? To date, sadly only Northumbria NHS Trust has done that and only at great expense to the council and with minimal savings. Imagine the savings that could have been achieved had the Government negotiated a group of the contracts with these companies at the same time. The savings in interest could be paying down debt or paying nurses and teachers properly.

We then face our final question: why are we borrowing only from these companies? Why are more companies not competing for our business as taxpayers? In the past few years, this Government have been making it harder for local government to pay down its debts. The Public Works Loan Board could use the Government’s financial strength as a borrower to secure much lower rates and then pass them on to public bodies. Instead, they changed the early repayment terms in 2007. In 2010, changes were made to loans to make it harder, not easier, for local councils to borrow efficiently.

If that does not excite Ministers, perhaps they will support an alternative in the shape of the new municipal bond agency created by local councils. The agency seeks to lend at margins of between 0.6% and 1% over the underlying Government funding rate. Currently, if a council wants to borrow money for 30 years from the Public Works Loan Board, it will charge just over 2%. In contrast to the complexity of PFI or PF2, municipal bonds are simple and transparent. Bonds are issued to the market to raise funds and local government lending is at a fixed rate.

The Government could make pensions funds more likely to invest in partnerships with Government by being more transparent about the deals and the returns to be made. The current Pensions Infrastructure Platform has led to such companies buying old PFI debt, but that can change. The Manchester and London local government pension funds have recently acted together to invest in windfarms and biomass, so there is clearly a market. With Government support, that could be the basis for a UK sovereign wealth fund—the people’s money used for the people’s projects. The sad truth, however, is that no such innovations are coming from this House or the Treasury, so why are we throwing good money after bad trying to make private finance initiatives work? With a Prime Minister who has pledged to put infrastructure investment at the heart of post-Brexit economy, Britain cannot afford to keep making expensive mistakes.

I have five simple questions for the Minister. First, will he commit to publishing the rates at which public agencies are borrowing so we can have greater transparency of the costs incurred to the taxpayer and so that we can check whether, as many fear, PF2 will be more expensive than PFI? When will the Government publish the equity returns data, promised since last year, on the PF2 deals? Secondly, is the minister not perturbed by the relationships between a small group of institutional investors in these deals and the lack of competition for taxpayers’ business? If so, will he ask the Competition and Markets Authority, which acts on the behalf of consumers—as taxpayers, we are consumers—to review the sector and explore whether barriers to new entrants exist? Thirdly, will the Government help public bodies saddled with PFI and PF2 contracts to renegotiate debts and get the costs down to save money for front-line services? Fourthly, will the Government rewrite the Green Book to reflect the real costs and benefits of public borrowing versus private borrowing? Fifthly, what does he make of the new Eurostat rules published in March that consider the equity stakes that the Government intend us to take out under PF2 to be direct financing, meaning that they should be on the books? Does that not undermine the point of PF2 in the first place?

Finally, how will the Minister stop money simply going overseas into tax havens and into higher profits for private companies, not public services for the people? As things stand, 46 schools, and many more hospitals, will be built using £700 million of that PF2 control total, at a time when borrowing is at an exceptionally low cost for government. Do not take my word for that. Instead, take the word of Leo Quinn, the chief executive of Balfour Beatty, who recently said that “money is effectively free”. There is no excuse not to act, to tackle the costs of existing PFI contracts and the lack of competition for our business as taxpayers, so that we can really get value for money and so that instead of injecting our cash into profits for private companies overseas, we can inject our money into the kind of projects that will get Britain’s economy and Britain’s people back into business.

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

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for securing this debate. How we go about funding the infrastructure this country needs is a topic of huge importance, and I know Members from across the House will join me in thanking her for this opportunity to discuss it today, because we all share a desire to make sure we fund our public services in the best way possible. We are talking about the schools and hospitals people rely on, as well as the roads, train lines, energy supplies and broadband coverage. In short, we are talking about the public services that not only keep our economy running, but help us to generate new jobs and new opportunities for people across the country.

As someone who has run a number of businesses and now finds himself as a Minister at the Treasury, I do not want to see money wasted. My priority, and that of my colleagues in Government, is therefore to make sure that when we invest in the services people need, we get a good outcome and we pay a good price. Clearly, teaming up with the private sector can be an important way to finance new projects in the most efficient way possible, because often these are complex, difficult projects, which come with a range of risks to delivering them successfully, on time and on budget. One benefit that PFI brought was to move the risks associated with constructing and delivering these projects to the private sector, which was best placed to manage them. For us, that means not only that if something goes wrong, it is the responsibility of the private sector partners to fix it, but that we pay only if the service is working and available for use. As such, partnerships between the public and private sectors can be the best way to find the best value for the taxpayer, and we are clear that we will only enter into public-private partnerships where the evidence shows us that is the case.

We have also done a lot of work to make sure that the system of financing projects privately is as effective as possible. The primary model used for about two decades was, of course, PFI. Although in many cases it was an effective way to deliver new infrastructure, it was not always the case that projects went smoothly, and not all of these partnerships delivered the value for money that we would all want to see. That is why, under the last Government, we did a lot of work to tackle that. We looked at what lessons we could draw from PFI and how we could keep the best parts of it while making important reforms. That culminated in the 2012 launch of a new model for how public private partnerships could work, PF2, which has helped iron out a variety of issues. For example, PFI was often criticised for its long procurement times, which could sometimes last for many years. PF2 has already been shown to deliver shorter procurement times, and has already delivered almost 50 schools and a hospital project.

Under the new system, we have also taken important measures to improve transparency, ranging from the annual publication of data to the Treasury’s involvement on the boards of the companies leading the projects, and we also listened to feedback from stakeholders to build in more flexibility to the standard contracts we used, which often dictated services such as cleaning and catering. These have been removed, which means that the public sector now has a greater say over how the services it uses are run. We also have improved the overall system for new projects going forward. We must bear it in mind that we have a legacy of more than 700 projects that originated under the private finance initiative, which together are worth around £60 billion in terms of capital investment. Six hundred and thirty nine of those projects had reached financial close before May 2010.

We want to do what we can to ensure that these projects run as efficiently as possible. In 2011, we launched a programme to deliver an initial £1.5 billion of savings and efficiencies. We looked at PFI projects across sectors—from health to education and justice to transport. I am pleased to say that, as of March last year, public sector organisations from across local and central Government had reported more than £2 billion of savings and efficiencies over the life of the projects. We are still exploring a potential further £2 billion in savings through the more efficient use of facilities and adjustments to the scope of contracts.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister just said there that the Government are still exploring how to make further savings on the scope of the contracts. Can he confirm whether the Government are looking at the rates of return paid on these contracts, and whether there are opportunities to negotiate with the companies that own these contracts—they are spread across the country—to reduce the repayments of interest on them collectively and to consolidate some of the loans for the public sector?

[Simon Kirby]

What I can say is that the Government are prepared to look at all of these individual arrangements to see where it is possible to obtain the best value for money. Often, it is simply not possible to restructure or to pay off the debt in a way that offers value for money for the taxpayer. We would be mad, would we not, if we did not look carefully at providing the best possible value for money and the best possible public services? That is an ongoing issue.

As I was saying, if it is not possible to find obvious savings in a project, we will work with Departments and procuring authorities to improve day-to-day efficiencies and management of the contract.

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, including one on equity investments and equity returns. Public sector equity—equity and shareholder loans—committed to PF2 projects as at March 2016 totalled £8.2 million. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority, on behalf of the Treasury, plans to collate the equity returns information over the course of this year. This will be the first collection of such data, as the projects included are only now becoming operational and starting to make a return. We have not yet set a date for publication, but we can expect it at an appropriate time in the future.

The hon. Lady asked about the Green Book. I can tell her that it will be refreshed later this year. There will be clear guidance to Departments about the alternatives to PF2, and about whether that particular form of finance is the most appropriate. She also mentioned value for money. To be clear, the Government will only use public private partnerships such as PF2 to deliver a project that provides value for money over a publicly financed solution. Analysis is carried out using the principles in the Green Book, which is published by the Treasury.

[Stella Creasy]

Obviously, one issue here is whether there is effective competition for our businesses as consumers. I did urge the Minister to ask the Competition and Markets Authority to review that very point, so that there may be more options and more alternatives. It may help us to understand why there are barriers to the alternatives. Will he agree to that, and will he clarify what he means by the appropriate time for those equity returns data? Obviously, we have been promised that for more than 18 months. Will he guarantee that that will be an early Christmas present at the very least?

[Simon Kirby]

I can certainly guarantee that it will be as soon as possible. The thing is we need the data to be able to report on them. Most of these projects are only just starting, so I am sure that we will have it as soon as is reasonable.

The hon. Lady mentions alternatives. I am fortunate to have in my constituency, Brighton Kemptown, a fantastic new hospital being built at nearly £500 million. It is not using PFI or PF2. It is the Royal Sussex county hospital. Each of these projects is financed in different ways, but all projects should provide the best value for money for the taxpayer.

[Simon Kirby]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Projects are financed in different ways. The hon. Lady’s local hospital, Whipps Cross, which is part of the Barts hospital PFI, was bond-financed. Refinancing is far more difficult and far less practical for bond debt. It is safe to say that refinancing of bonds is unlikely to provide value for money. The aim is value for money not only in the financing of new projects, but in changing or varying an existing finance arrangement.

[Stella Creasy]

I am pleased that the Minister refers to my local hospital. That is owned by Innisfree, which owns a huge number of such projects across the country. I am not sure if the one in Sherwood is one of those. I believe some of those in Brighton Kemptown may have some connection to Innisfree. There is a case to be made for renegotiating with such companies, which may wish to bid for PF2 business in the future. Is the Minister satisfied that there is enough competition for our business as taxpayers? Will he refer the matter to the Competition and Markets Authority so that it can look at whether those companies have a captive market, and whether alternatives such as bonds or the pension funds might be willing to invest in such projects and help out those public services, as well as not making the same mistakes with PF2 as seem to have been made with PFI?

[Simon Kirby]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that question. I am happy to reassure her and give her a commitment that I will look at any solution that provides value for money. If that means that we should have more competition, so be it. We have a responsibility as a Government to get the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. In many cases we are historically in a difficult position. Her hospital finance was agreed in 2006, if I remember correctly. It is very difficult to unwind, but if she is asking me whether it is the Government’s intention to get the best possible deal, the answer is yes. If, after all the necessary investigation and consideration, it was appropriate to follow the route that she suggests, I would certainly consider that.

I reiterate that the issue is important. There is surprising agreement across the House. We all want to see the best possible public services and we all want the best possible deal for our constituents and the taxpayers who pay for these vital infrastructure projects, but we must be realistic about what we can change from the past. That does not mean that we should give up and accept that it is not possible to provide a better deal. We aim to achieve the best possible value always, because that is what the public expect and what the nation’s finances need, and it is what I and this Government will do our best to deliver.

Question put and agreed to.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me begin by associating myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) about the dreadful situation in Brussels.

This debate has seemed to be more about astronomy than about the Budget, because we have all been talking about black holes. However, there is a clear analogy to be drawn. It will be remembered that Stephen Hawking famously described what he called the “black hole paradox”: the idea that information could simply disappear into a black hole, never to be restored, although all matter contained information that was to be held in perpetuity. What a perfect analogy that is, given that, at this point, we simply have no information about how the Budget will stack up. Our colleagues in local government would rightly be horrified.

Where can we find information about the impact of the Budget? We can find it in our constituencies, and obtain it from the people whom we represent. In the time that I have been granted, I shall offer three areas of information on which we can judge the Chancellor’s work. The first is personal debt; the second is savings; and the third is productivity. Those are three areas in which this Budget signally fails the British people.

It is no accident that personal household debt in this country is going up and up. “Unprecedented” is the term that the Office for Budget Responsibility has used to describe the impact of the Chancellor’s plans on our constituents. Unsecured personal debt is set to reach 3% of GDP and to stay at that level. This is a black hole into which the Chancellor is asking the public to pour their own money to pay for his mistakes. Just how bad is the situation? The Bank of England tells us that people are now borrowing £1 billion a month in this country. In January alone, people put £500 million on their credit cards, and Aviva tells us that the average family debt is now £13,000, up £4,000 from last summer’s level.

Those on the Conservative Benches who are casual about credit miss the point. Not everyone is paying the same level of interest. Some are being charged excessive amounts for the debts that they are getting into to pay for the Chancellor’s mistakes. The hon. Member for South Dorset talked about people putting their houses up to fund their businesses, but many in our communities have long given up on the dream of home ownership as a result of the debt that they are now in. Wages have risen by just 4% in the last few years, but house prices have gone up by 76%. We know that every single penny matters. That is why it is such a problem that people face these levels of debt. This Chancellor is banking on the British habit of borrowing, but that is like putting Wayne Rooney in charge of a stock-take in a Nike shop.

This is not just about people’s borrowing habits. The fact is that we are now a nation that cannot save either. We are saving just 4% of our disposable income, which is half as much as we were saving four years ago. That is the lowest level of personal saving since 1963. Help to Save will do little for the 26 million people in our country who do not even have access to £1,000 for an emergency. On this Government’s watch, they have no rainy day money. Lifetime ISAs are out of reach for those people who have too much month at the end of their money.

We are seeing a situation of rising personal debt, and low or no savings, in which wages are now stalling. This has an impact on our public finances, because it leads to lower tax receipts. They are down £44 billion on the projections made in 2011. That is why we on this side of the House are angry when we see that those who will do well out of the Budget are those who can well afford to pay. We know that 80% of the gains from the Budget will go to those in the top half of the income distribution, and that half of that amount will go to the top 20%. Meanwhile, debt is locking our people out of opportunities.

[George Kerevan]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the very act of running a budget surplus—that is, putting more in than we take out—forces the public accounts into a situation in which private borrowing increases?

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman might not know of my long-held concerns about the way in which this Government are managing the public finances. We do not have time today to talk about PFI debt, or about PF2, which is going to lead to even more problems.

We on this side of the House get the fact that we need to get the deficit down, because every single penny that we pay in interest, and every single penny that we use to pay for the mistakes in this Government’s borrowing, is money that could be invested in our people. It could be invested in the public services that our communities need in order to succeed. That is the point about this Budget. It is not just about the damage that it is doing to people today, or about the debts and destitution that they face now. It is about the narrowing of their horizons tomorrow, too.

We can see the Government signally failing to deal with the productivity gap Britain faces, and the 18% difference between ourselves and our competitors. They are failing to invest in our young people. By the end of this Parliament, China intends to produce 195 million graduates. Not just China is investing in its people; Brazil, Russia and Argentina are as well. Our children will have to compete with graduates from those countries, but our Government are offering them nothing in that regard. We can see the consequences for them in the productivity gap. And when the Government are forcing every school to become an academy, we can see that they are rejecting their own responsibility.

How very different this is from when we sat here a year ago and listened to the Chancellor claim that he was fixing the roof and that Britain would be able to walk tall again. He is a bit like one of those builders we see on the “Watchdog” programme. I would encourage the British people to go to their trading standards officer about him, but the Government have cut that service too. They are left with only one alternative, to look to an alternative party of government—the Labour party—to offer a genuine investment in the future of our young people and a genuine recognition of why fiscal responsibility matters. This is a black hole that is sucking everything out of this country—including, hopefully, the Chancellor’s career.

Finance Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris]

In that particular respect, the hon. Gentleman has heard me correctly. However, if he had heard my earlier remarks, he would also be aware of my great unease at many other policies put forward by the current Government as well as by the previous Conservative-led Government. But in the narrow respect to which he refers, he did understand me correctly.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a Government who voted three times against a cap on the cost of credit should not be lecturing the Opposition on how to protect the vulnerable? Perhaps if they had listened earlier to the concerns expressed from the Labour Benches about people who are vulnerable and who have personal debt in this current economic climate, this country would have made much more progress.

[Rob Marris]

I agree that progress can be pitifully slow under Conservative-led Governments, and that sometimes those Governments are very slow learners. With regard to the work that my hon. Friend has done, which has an echo in the safeguards under clause 47, she has persuaded the Government to be less hard-nosed and to be more “listening” about financial vulnerability than they had previously been and much credit for that success must go to her for her work with charities and others.

New clause 10 seeks in a very reasonable and moderate way to have a review of the effects of clause 47. The review would cover the total amount recovered, and whether it was as expected. It would cover the number of cases dealt with: would it be 11,000, because at one point the Government thought that it might be 19,000? It might also provide some measure of the effectiveness of the new procedure. I say to the Minister that we on the Labour Benches do not like the procedure, because it smacks of hypocrisy—of the Government, not of him personally. It is a case of, “It’s one rule for them and another for us. The court system is not working, so we will do a workaround on that.”

I now wish to turn to new clause 11 on the climate change levy, and to amendment 90, which would delete clause 45 on the CCL. In a sense, the proposal is a double negative. If clause 45 were deleted, the exemption would be restored. Again, I urge the Government to look at both these measures, which retain, certainly for the moment, the exemption on the climate change levy and, as stated in new clause 11, look at the effect of the abolition of that exemption. As I understand it, there was no consultation to speak of before the measure was announced. In contradistinction, when a fundamental change to the tax regime of combined heat and power units was introduced, that industry got two years’ notice of exemptions. In this case, this year, there was 28 days’ notice, which is next to no notice at all, because these things have long lead times.

I accept the Government’s figure that a third of this exemption is claimed by overseas producers—if only that were not the case. When many, if not all, western countries address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, which is the nub of what we are talking about, they tend to offshore the problem. Carbon dioxide intensive manufacturing, using lots of non-renewable fossil fuels, gets relocated by capitalists to places such as China and India, making it look as if the CO₂ emissions per capita in the United Kingdom are falling quite dramatically, but if the CO₂ emissions in the United Kingdom were to include those for which UK residents and consumers are responsible, we would see a rather different picture. Of course Labour Members are not happy about a third of this exemption money going overseas, but in one sense that is all part of offshoring. As far as one can see, successive Governments have been turning a blind eye to the offshoring of greenhouse gas emissions to China and India and so on, but when we are talking about measures to lessen that, no offshoring is to be allowed under this Government. They should think again.

I am not intimate with the industry—this is after all a finance debate and not an energy debate—but I accept that the cost of the CCL exemption in the five years of this Parliament could be in the order of £4 billion. We are talking about a lot of money. It is symptomatic of this Government being penny wise and pound foolish—if one can be penny wise with £4 billion—because they are cutting the exemption too soon, before the industry reaches self-sufficiency. If the industry were treated like the nuclear industry, we would have 100 years of subsidy before deciding whether the technology worked and it was self-sufficient. I am not suggesting that, but what we have is an industry in which the UK has been pretty successful. Indeed, it is a desirable industry. It is a renewables industry which, on all the evidence of which I am aware, is likely to grow in future years around the world, not shrink. We had some technological lead and a skilled UK workforce, but then the Government take us a step back with what they do at 28 days’ notice to the CCL exemption. I understand that prospective onshore wind projects are, almost as we speak, being abandoned, which is regrettable. That is not to say that every one of those projects should proceed, but it is regrettable if the whole industry is shrinking.

As I understand it, the impact assessment for the changes to the CCL exemption and the feed-in tariff is that there will be 1 million more tonnes of CO₂ produced in the UK each year, which seems to be going in the wrong direction. What other financial incentives are there to encourage UK non-domestic users—I am talking about business and the public sector, not households—to use renewables? Secondly, in what ways are the renewables obligation and contracts for difference more efficient and more effective?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I do not think new clause 7 is strong enough. It just asks for progress. We are not doing enough. Let me explain why.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), who presumably helped to draft this proposal, knows perfectly well that he is trying to find a way of satisfying those who would like to see a serious attempt made to reduce the VAT on these products. They are clearly necessary and the tax on them should be reduced in the way that has been proposed. Unfortunately, however, he also knows that because of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act, it is impossible to do that without getting the agreement of all the other member states. There is a variation as between other member states and ourselves to the advantage of those states, the net result of which is that supporters of new clause 7 are not going to get that agreement and they know it.

I am completely on the side of those who want to see a total elimination of VAT on these products.

[Stella Creasy]

I note with pleasure the hon. Gentleman’s support for the idea that tampons, as they are called, and sanitary towels are an essential. I am an avid follower of many of his debates in Parliament, and I know that he has raised concerns before about the European Union. Having discovered his support for this proposal, I wonder whether he can update us on when he last raised in this House the issue of VAT on tampons.

[Sir William Cash]

I am not going to say that I did, but I put through an Act of Parliament, the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, both to protect women and to promote their interests, with massive support from all parts of the House, so I want no suggestion that I am backward in coming forward on these issues.

New clause 7 contains weasel words. It does not solve anything. It is not in the interests of the United Kingdom not to deal with the problem properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about his concern for global gender inequality, and his support for the idea that tampons are an essential and therefore should not be zero-rated. There is another way to read the amendment, is there not? Were we to pass it and to propose these matters at the European Union and secure zero-rating on tampons across the whole EU, he would be showing solidarity with his sisters in France, Belgium, Germany, Italy—indeed, he could be helping many more women by supporting zero-rating across the European Union.

[Sir William Cash]

If there were a cat in hell’s chance that we would get this through the European Union, I would entirely endorse the hon. Lady’s sentiments. I would like to see the changes. The problem is that everybody on the Opposition Benches and the Government know quite well that they are not going to be able to achieve that with the kind of progress report that is mentioned in the new clause. It would be a great opportunity now to propose a provision that would override European law to make sure that we could achieve the objectives that she and I clearly share.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I do not want to pursue this, not least because I am avidly waiting for the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), which I think will be compelling, but may I give him a spark of hope? It is not just on these shores that there are women—and men—fighting for zero-rating on tampons; there are others doing so in France. The proposal was put forward just this summer. Should he choose to vote with us and support the new clause, he will be joining many people across the European Union. I want him to have hope that we can win this at the European level, rather than the despair that he currently feels.

[Sir William Cash]

My final remarks on the issue are these: that is wishful thinking. What is needed is not a report, but action—action to return to this Parliament the right to determine its own levels of taxation. I regard the proposals in the new clause as aspirations without substance, yet I agree with the underlying principle, which can be implemented only by an effective legislative change to the Finance Bill, whereby we take back control over our own affairs and govern not only the men but the women of this country in the way in which they would like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

This problem of taxation on tampons and other sanitary products is one that, quite rightly, excites a great degree of anger and controversy, but the solution to the problem is uncontroversial. It is perfectly obvious that we are all agreed in the House that we should get rid of the tax on tampons and other sanitary products. The reason why this is a subject of interest to so many is that the House is of course prohibited from doing so by EU law.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify why he thinks that purchase tax, which was also applied to tampons before our entry into the European Community, was not similarly egregious to women?

[Mr Baker]

Of course that tax was similarly egregious to women. I am happy to say that I was born in 1971, so I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for not taking responsibility for decisions made at that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). However he got to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), I am grateful, because tonight we have an opportunity to make progress on this issue.

I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and hear his story of our meeting back in 1993—more than 20 years ago. That offers a parable for tonight’s debate, and an opportunity for the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) to have hope when it comes to difficult issues. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is right to recall that, as a newly elected MP, he came to my school to speak to the girls on a wet afternoon, and got a grilling from one member of the sixth form. I am sad that the debates we had about child poverty and access to further education did not make such an impression on him, but I am delighted and genuinely humbled to hear that he took the issue that we raised back to the then shadow Cabinet for debate. As he knows, at the same time my headteacher threatened to exclude me should I ask the MP any more difficult questions.

The parable that I think that offers for negotiations in Europe is simple: we may need courage to raise difficult issues with a respected authority figure, but—I say this to the hon. Member for Stone—look at what happens when such issues are raised. People who we think might disagree with us, in fact turn out 20 years later to be champions for social and progressive change.

[Sir William Cash]

In 1993 we were conducting the entire Maastricht referendum in order to get the results that the hon. Lady wants on this particular matter. At that time, we realised that if we did not sort out the European Union properly, we would never get the kind of equality that she is now demanding.

[Stella Creasy]

The idea that if we do not ask a question we shall never find out the answer is an issue that is on point tonight, and one reason why this eminently reasonable and sensible new clause should garner support from across the House. This debate has not happened at the European level, and, given what happened 20 years ago, my point is that when we ask such questions and challenge people, we can be amazed at the results we secure.

This debate is not about VAT or even the European Union. I recognise that the hon. Member for Wycombe was too young to take part in the vote to join the European Community, but my point in mentioning the purchase tax is that it is a bit of a red herring to think that this is about the European Union. Tampons and sanitary towels have always been considered a luxury. That is not by accident; that is by design in an unequal society in which the concerns of women are not treated as equal to those of men. Even if we were not in the European Union, there is every possibility that a purchase tax would be applied to sanitary towels and tampons but not to other products.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

Go on then.

[Sir William Cash]

The International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 was nothing to do with the European Union. Some of us believe passionately in the same sorts of arguments that the hon. Lady is putting forward, and that is by no means exclusive to issues of the European Union.

[Stella Creasy]

I will come on to issues of gender and equality on an international level, but I give the hon. Gentleman warning that I will not take any more interventions from him unless he uses the terms “sanitary towels” and “tampons”. It is important to use appropriate wording in the House.

The inequality that women have faced in having to pay this tax has existed for generations. The question for us all is what we can do to change that, which is why I add my name to those who have congratulated the former Member for Bristol South, Dame Dawn Primarolo. She is a hero to many of us for her persistence in fighting to reduce the rate of VAT on sanitary towels and tampons in the European Union in 2000. I have talked to her at first hand about those negotiations—she had to use the appropriate terms and explain that if we did not resolve this issue, men and women could be sitting next to each other, with women experiencing their periods and the difficulties that can come from that, but without that same protection because of the cost of these products. Her work was visionary.

Talking to Dame Dawn Primarolo, it became clear that this is not about VAT rates but about VAT descriptions. I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this, because there is common agreement that we wish to resolve this issue and a recognition that in 2015, a tax on women—a femitax, a vagina tax, or whatever we want to call it—is unfair. The issue can be resolved not necessarily by considering VAT rates, but by considering the way that VAT is described and ascribed to certain products. That is where the inequality has come from—the concept of what is a necessity.

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

I will of course give way to the hon. Gentleman. It is like 20 years ago.

[Mr Jenkin]

I do not remember the hon. Lady giving way 20 years ago. She was at the very fine Colchester county high school for girls, which is a grammar school. In parenthesis, I am delighted that, through the reforms we are pursuing, this Government are doing more for educational opportunities for the least advantaged than any Government in living memory.

Why does the hon. Lady think that Dame Dawn Primarolo was unable to remove the 5% VAT on tampons and sanitary towels when she succeeded in reducing the things that we had discretion over? Why did she not take this initiative to the European Union? It was because she found that the Government of the day felt that they had other, more important fish to fry in their negotiations with the European Union. We should get away from such an unsatisfactory give and take to national interests by leaving the European Union.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the school that I attended. I was incredibly lucky to get there, having failed the 11-plus the first time I took it. I shall always be against selection because I recognise the benefits that I received from being able to take that exam a second time and get that education. That school taught me to do my homework, which is why I know that one of the rules and challenges of this issue is that zero-rated VAT is different from reduced rate VAT. At the time, Dawn Primarolo found that the issue was not about unwillingness but about the way that the rules on what a zero-rating—as opposed to a reduced rating—could be applied to had been changed. That is why she was able to secure a reduction in VAT to 5% from 17.5%—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that was progress—but this issue is about the way that products are described.

I am sure that the Minister knows his history of value added tax, how a product is described and what is described as a “necessity”. It is important to have a concept of what is currently described as a “necessity” and is therefore zero-rated. I wonder whether Conservative Members will agree that when we change these definitions, progress can be made.

For example, Jaffa Cakes are zero-rated. I am not a fan of Jaffa Cakes—let it be known that if I am offered a Jaffa Cake, I will refuse. I do not consider them to be essential to my life; I can give or take them. I recognise that razors are zero-rated, and judging by many Conservative Members the opportunity to shave every day is a human right. They are cleanly shaven, and I am sure they would be concerned to be charged a higher rate of VAT. Pitta bread is zero-rated—we can probably all agree that that is a necessity. What is the kebab without a good pitta bread around it? It is a necessity. When we start looking at what is described as a “necessity” and what is a “luxury”, we see the inequalities in this debate. As I said earlier, those inequalities existed long before we joined the European Union and long before we started to work on value added tax.

The question for all of us is not how to have similar rates of taxation, but how to recognise the similar descriptions. That is the way that this issue can be resolved in the European Union. It is also why working with our colleagues in other countries matters to us. I come back to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Stone about gender inequality, because he is absolutely right: our sisters in France are paying 20% on their tampons and sanitary towels because they do not have the reduced rate. This is therefore not about sanitary towels and the rate of taxation across the European Union; it is about the way in which different countries have interpreted the concept of necessity and essentials.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

I have been very clear with the hon. Gentleman. Unless he is prepared to talk about the actual products that we are discussing, I will not take any more interventions from him, but if he is indicating that he can say the word, I will happily give way.

[Sir William Cash]

With respect to the question of sanitary towels and tampons, may I simply make this point? I recognise that the hon. Lady really knows what she is talking about, so I would like to know whether, in her experience, there is a similar problem internationally, outside the European Union, that perhaps comes from international organisations? Could she please explain whether there is anything in that?

[Stella Creasy]

And people say that progress cannot be made in this Chamber or that there cannot be cross-party agreement! The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, 10% of girls in Africa do not go to school when they have their periods because they do not have appropriate sanitary protection, so he is right to be concerned about this. What I am saying—let us see whether we can tempt him to make further progress—is that feminism should be without borders; in which case we should be concerned about inequality in the tax rates and VAT that our sisters pay in a range of countries, including those in the European Union.

Tonight we have an opportunity, here in the British Parliament, to show solidarity across the continent and make sure that this issue is part of the negotiating process. Because let us be honest, it was never part of the negotiating process in this House prior to joining the European Community. It was only part of the negotiating process because of Dame Dawn Primarolo. It is a red herring to think that this is about the European Union; rather, it is a recognition that the time has come to end these inequalities. Our sisters in France tried to bring forward legislation just this summer and were defeated. What a strong message of social progress we could send from the British Parliament today by passing this proposal and sending our Prime Minister to have that difficult conversation and to say, “How do we clarify the way in which essential items are categorised across the European Union? How do we make this work for 51% of our population?”

I am sensing from the hon. Member for Stone that he does care about these issues deeply and does recognise the inequality. If he has frustration tonight, it is simply that he is not seeing progress happening quickly enough. Let me reassure him that, whether it takes 20 years or two hours of debate, it is possible to make progress. I urge him to support our new clause, so that we can send our Prime Minister to the European Union with something worth fighting for. We can all hear back from him in February whether he has made progress and been able to say to our French, German and Italians counterparts that tampons and sanitary towels should be treated as necessities in 2015. I am sure that when we hear that message from the Minister tonight, he will give us great succour—that he will use the appropriate terms and bring us all into the 21st century by supporting the new clause as well.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

May I give my respects to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) for bringing this debate to the House? I have heard some very interesting figures this evening—in particular, that 250,000 people have signed previous amendments and discussion points about this issue over the years, and I know that there have been all sorts of discussions about this very issue for as long as I have been in Parliament.

I am not surprised that new clause 7 has attracted cross-party support, with many Members, both female and male, from the Government, SNP and, obviously, Labour Benches supporting it, and so they absolutely should, because this has always been, and will always be, a wholly illogical tax. We heard some interesting detail from my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). I would not know the difference between various products if they were laid out, yet some would be zero-rated and some would be taxed at the lower rate, although this is not just a female issue. I think she described some of these items as “Oops-a-daisy” products, and if there is a male “Oops-a-daisy” product, it would be zero-rated, so we can immediately see these anomalies in the tax system. Nappies have always been zero-rated because they relate to children. Indeed, one of the anomalies that we have enjoyed compared with much of the European Union—how long that will last, who knows—is that children’s products and food continue to be zero-rated, no matter how luxurious the food might appear to some.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

It is incredibly welcome to hear that the Minister is going to raise this matter, but may I press him to be a bit clearer about which environment he will raise it in, and about when we will hear back? Will he also confirm that the European Commission can produce a zero rating if it is declared to be in the public interest to do so? Will he commit to raising that point as part of his negotiations with the European Commission? We all recognise the points that have been made about the technicalities of VAT, but there is a public interest exemption that he could use in his negotiations, is there not?

[Mr Gauke]

It does require a proposal from the Commission and the support of all 28 member states. Just to be clear, this is not a formality.

Tax Credits

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I will give way in a moment if I can make some more progress.

It is shocking that the Government continue to avoid telling the truth about these changes, including the Prime Minister, to whom I wrote last week, asking him to clarify his comments that after all the Government’s changes a family where one earner is on the minimum wage will be £2,400 better off. He is yet to be clear about how he reached that conclusion, how many families will gain in the way he suggests or what assessment he makes of the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Resolution Foundation, Barnardo’s and so many others who are against these changes.

The Chancellor chose either not to perform or not to publish an impact assessment of these changes for the Commons—a move that was criticised in no uncertain terms by the Social Security Advisory Committee. There are only two ways to interpret that: the Government either do not want to know or do not want to tell.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend talks about the impact of these changes. Let me give her one simple example from my Walthamstow constituency of a working mum. When her tax credits were delayed, we had to refer her to a food bank because they were literally the difference between being on the breadline and having bread. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will happen to working people across the country if these changes go ahead?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She highlights, too, the impact of the Government’s appalling administrative processes on our constituents. They are left trying to make ends meet and having to go to food banks. More than 60% of the use of food banks is due to issues with benefits and benefits administration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) because I see a very different situation. I genuinely believe that the different situations that we see and the consequences of the tax credit cuts that the Government are introducing speak volumes about the choices that the British people face.

I want to take up the challenge set by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). He rightly said that those of us on this side of the House are not an Opposition. I agree with him: we are an alternative. I want to set out what being an alternative means and why we would take different decisions on tax credits.

First and foremost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) pointed out—I am sad he is not here—the order in which change happens is crucial to the impact that it has. There is general agreement in the House that we all want to see a higher wage, lower welfare economy and higher productivity. Surely the test of every change the Government make should be whether it will achieve those things. The simple answer is that this change will not.

The evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that none of the Government’s changes to mitigate the impact of the cuts will raise family living standards. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe pointed out, employers are raising wages. I am a little more cynical than him and suspect that they are doing so because changes in the law are coming, rather than out of benign munificence and a recognition of the benefits to productivity of paying a higher wage.

Nevertheless, the order in which the Government are undertaking the changes will make all the difference to the people in this country. They could decide to change the order and introduce the so-called living wage first, then look at the tax credit cuts. That would make a difference because of one matter that was sorely absent from the Exchequer Secretary’s contribution. I am surprised that he did not mention it, given that he used to be an expert on it. He is presiding over an economy in which personal debt is rising at an alarming rate. The Minister looks quizzical. He says that the burden of the Government’s changes is being distributed equally, but the burden of personal debt is not equally distributed in this country, as we see at first hand in our communities. We see families for whom borrowing on a credit card or from friends and family, or taking out a payday loan, is the only way that they can make ends meet.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech and I, too, am confused about why the Minister is looking so perplexed. The Office for Budget Responsibility stated that because of measures introduced in the Chancellor’s Budget, unsecured borrowing will rise by £45 billion by the next election. My hon. Friend’s point is pertinent to the debate.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister kept talking about the amount of public debt that he wanted to attribute to each household, but average unsecured personal debt is now £10,000 per household. Given the vulnerability to which families are exposed when they have that level of unsecured debt, will the changes make it more or less likely that such personal debt will rise? No one in the House would argue that the changes as currently constituted will not lead to a rise in personal debt to families, and we know the consequences of that. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) who honestly and openly set out the consequences of debt. She explained the worries she has when she sees families who are struggling with debt, and Labour Members share those concerns.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

I applaud the hon. Lady’s passion but she is missing the context. The changes are part of a package that include a national minimum wage, 30 hours of free childcare, and a lock on tax rises. Taking that into account, wages and personal income will rise—does she not see that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I beg the hon. Lady to read research from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies that shows that none of those changes will compensate for the difference in income. I ask her to look into her heart and consider whether families in her constituency will end up borrowing because they find that there is even more month at the end of their money as a result of these changes and the way they are being introduced.

I understand the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe but there are alternative choices. We all want the deficit to go down—some of us do not want to see Governments borrowing from banks anymore—and we recognise the problems in our economy. Some of us are deeply concerned about the consequences for families of having that level of personal debt hanging over their heads. When interest rates rise—and they will—a 2% increase will lead to an extra £1,000 a year in interest payments alone that families will have to find. Families in other constituencies might have £1,000 hanging around, but not those in my constituency. With one third of people in this country having no savings at all, the changes as they stand will eat not into people’s savings or borrowings, but into their debt. That is the consequence we are facing and we need alternative ways to deal with that.

Let me offer some alternative ideas for how we could cut the cake and reduce this country’s debt. The Government could make changes to inheritance tax, although I recognise that Conservative Members do not like that idea. Alternatively, let us look at capital gains tax. The Chancellor made great play of putting capital gains tax on the sale of commercial property, but he left open a loophole for residential property. Were the Government to close that gap, none of these changes would need to take place.

Debt is a problem in itself. This Government are paying out £10 billion in public finance initiative debt repayments. Were they to get serious about renegotiating PFI debt—they would receive support for that from those on the Opposition Benches—we could save that money. The speech by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was powerful because there are always choices to be made. Labour Members would make different choices and put first those people for whom £10,000 of unsecured personal debt means not only suffering the indignity of going to a food bank or going hungry every day, but that they cannot make long-term choices for their family’s future, or even entertain the idea of getting on the housing ladder. They will not be able to pay the social care costs that the hon. Member for Erewash spoke about, or let their children go into further or higher education, because they simply cannot afford it. We see the potential that will be wasted as a result.

We want to make choices that will help those families, help the economy to be more productive, and help this country truly to bounce back, but that is not the choice being made by the Government tonight. I urge Government Members who recognise the debt held in their communities and understand that this measure will make it worse not better, to think again and to work with us on when and how these changes come in and how we can make sure everyone benefits from a higher wage, higher productivity economy. I promise them that the families in trouble who are coming to them now need and deserve nothing less.

Rent-to-own Sector

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and it is a genuine pleasure to take part in this debate. The Treasury Minister might be surprised to see a shadow Minister from the Business, Innovation and Skills team but, as he knows, I have form in this area. I am secretly delighted that he is now in the Treasury, especially on the issue of debt. I hope he will be the cuckoo in the nest of the Treasury when it comes to getting right the issue of how we help people in debt.

First, I acknowledge the work that the all-party group, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), and my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) have been doing in this area. I want to talk a little about some of the work that was done on this issue for the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and I also want to say something about the broader context in which the firms operate. Finally, as I always like to be helpful, I would like to suggest some proposals for making progress on this issue to the Minister, and test whether he is willing to support them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys on securing this debate. He said he is concerned that shadow Front Benchers may not be aware of these companies and may make the same mistake that others have made in thinking that the rent-to-own sector is about housing. Let me reassure him that the Opposition call a spade a spade. Legal loan sharking takes many forms. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield and I are as concerned about the rent-to-own sector and debt management companies as we are about payday lenders. That is why we have been campaigning for a number of years for reform of the sector.

Hon. Members will recognise concern in my part of town about what we call the “BrightHouse knock”—when we are knocking doors during campaigns, we have to be careful not to knock like the bailiffs, because people think we are BrightHouse coming to repossess their goods. I may have expressed some surprise when my hon. Friend cited BrightHouse’s statement that it does not repossess goods—it seems, then, that that is happening only in my part of town.

Rent-to-own companies are legal loan sharks. They operate in exactly the same way as the payday lending industry and a number of other consumer credit industries. They lend in a way that is designed to encourage a persistent relationship. The problem is that they lend in a way that does not ensure that people have access to fair credit, but ensures that they continue to pay something back weekly. They make sure they always get money out of people. In what other industry is there such a high default rate, yet such high profits to be made? That should surely tell us that it is not a competitive industry, and that there are problems that need to be addressed. We have all seen at first hand people in our communities who are exploited by that predatory model of lending.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for not being on time, Mr Hollobone. I flew in this morning. We stayed for 12 July, which, as hon. Members will know, is a special day in Northern Ireland.

I, too, have great interest in this issue. My constituents regularly come to me when they have entered into hire-purchase arrangements, and sometimes arrangements with loan sharks as well. What I see is their desperation. They have made a decision based on what is right at that moment in time, rather than what is good for them in future. Does the hon. Lady have any idea about how the Consumer Rights Act can be better utilised, or how someone can control it, to ensure that when people make such desperate decisions, we can help them at the right time?

[Stella Creasy]

I do not want to keep the hon. Gentleman on tenterhooks. I have some ideas, growing on the work that the all-party group and my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield have done on the industry. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we can do things to change the situation. We need to recognise that it is predatory lending. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys talked about vulnerable people being exploited, and that practice is much more widespread than people realise.

The hon. Member for Strangford is right; people make what is probably the right decision for them at the time about where they could get a freezer, cooker or other basic consumer goods that their family need to live. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys was tempted into a discussion about consumerism and modern life, but the reason we began campaigning on legal loan-sharking in my community was that we could see that people were trying to make ends meet and needed to be able to wash their kids’ clothes so that they had school uniform. Those companies were their only option, and the method of lending increasingly prevented them from going to other companies. It affected their credit histories so they could not borrow from other parts of the industry.

Frankly, it is very expensive to be poor in this country, and the problems are compounded by the companies in question and by predatory lending. Consumers lack choice, and that distorts the market price that they pay. Some hon. Members have already talked about the method of selling, “pay weekly”. For the shadow Front Bench the issue is the mindset—lending to people in a way that means they cannot get away. We have all seen examples of what has been mentioned, when people pay double the cost of a washing machine, cooker or TV, and then some, only to have the goods repossessed like that—I do not know whether Hansard can record my clicking my fingers, but it is that quick. As soon as someone falls behind for a week the company comes round. There is no breathing space or recognition that something about the lending may have got people into difficulty so that they cannot make their repayments. There is no such responsibility.

The Opposition have tabled several proposals to deal with the companies in question, and other legal loan sharks, for some years. The Minister is aware of that and I know that he shares my concern about the companies. We may differ on how best to deal with them and with predatory lending, but he too is concerned about it. During the passage of the Consumer Rights Act we tried to address the issue of warranties and insurance sold with products, and how that breached people’s consumer rights. They would be sold a product with a requirement that created a lack of clarity and transparency about what they were buying. I recognise that some companies now say that those things are not compulsory, but we all know about the hard sell. I remember the Minister talking about his experience of being on the BrightHouse mailing list. I am interested to know whether he has finally managed to disentangle himself from that. He will know how hard the companies push the products, as part of the original deal that was agreed to. Even if they are not now compulsory, the arrangements are still difficult for consumers to get out of.

The Minister may take the opportunity, now he is no longer in coalition, to suggest that he was held back by his former partners in his attempts to deal with the problems, and say that he is now free to get to grips with legal loan sharks. He is among friends as far as wanting that freedom to be exercised. During the passage of the Consumer Rights Act, Jenny Willott, the then Under-Secretary, said:

“If a warranty provides no more than the statutory rights and there is a charge associated with it, whoever is selling the warranty may well be in breach of consumer protection regulations. When shops sell goods and the warranty is purchased at the same time, the full cost must be disclosed and consumers must be informed of their statutory rights. Consumers also have the right to cancel the extended warranty within a set period, and those rights must be made known to the consumers when they purchase the warranty.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 623.]

The Under-Secretary was adamant that our proposals for prohibiting such agreements were covered under the consumer rights measures that were being introduced, so one of my questions to the Minister today is what he knows about the implementation of such rights since then. After all, the Act has been passed, and the Government set up a consumer rights implementation group. Is the issue of rent-to-own companies being investigated by that group? How are we making sure that consumers can exercise the rights they now have under the Act? That would also extend to marketing methods—the Minister will know about marketing lists—and how companies tell people their rights and make sure they know that they do not have to take out insurance or an extended warranty. Often such warranties are not worth the paper they are written on and offer consumers no additional protection or benefits. Is that being made plain to people?

Why does all that matter? Why must we get to grips with those companies? It is because we know the issue is fundamentally about debt. Consumer and personal debt in this country are rising into what might be called uncharted territory. Since March, unsecured personal debt has gone up £48 billion. Personal debt is rising three times as fast as wages. The Minister and I disagree about the Budget and whether it will make things worse or better, but we know people are finding that there is too much month at the end of their money. Therefore the companies we are talking about—and their credit agreements and their predatory lending behaviour—are here to stay, unless we show the political will to tackle them and unless we recognise how they make people’s already difficult situation worse. I may disagree with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys about the Government’s decision to abolish the term “child poverty”, but we can all agree that making it difficult for people to make ends meet by leaving them stuck with companies that exploit them and squeeze out every last penny will do no one any favours.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys talked about mortgage debt, and many people with mortgages go to the companies because they have no alternative. If interest rates go up just 2% families will have to find £1,000 extra a year in interest alone, to keep a roof over their head. If they are also trying to pay off an expensive cooker or freezer, we can see what is coming down the road for them. Some of us who fought to retain the social fund will know about the lack of alternatives. Many credit unions do wonderful work trying to come up with alternatives, but the lack of options is compelling people towards the companies in question. In the context where personal debt is rising—and that will cause a massive economic problem for us and put our recovery at risk—there is a compelling case to be much more proactive about predatory lending in the consumer credit market.

With that idea in mind perhaps I may give the Minister some suggestions for things to do, and things to raise with the Financial Conduct Authority. He will know that I have a slight sense that the Financial Conduct Authority is playing catch-up. If the banks were tyrannosaurus rex, legal loan sharks are the velociraptors of the consumer credit market. They are fast, nimble and ever-evolving, and that is evident when we compare the rent-to-own sector with the way lending is done by the lumbering beasts of banks. That is why voluntary action is not enough to deal with the companies. Will the Minister make a commitment to work with the Financial Conduct Authority and to get it to expand its remit, to look at the industries in question and how they can change? In particular, could there be a requirement on lenders to provide pre-contractual information on both the cash price of goods and the total cost of the credit agreement: the difference between the price at the start and what it could be by the end of the agreement? If consumers could have that up-front they would know exactly what the cost would be, including any additional fees and charges.

Companies could be banned from requiring consumers to take out additional products alongside the initial credit agreement—separating out the insurance and warranty to make it clear that, aside from its not being compulsory to buy them, it would be illegal to try to sell such additional products at the same time. The companies could be required to undertake affordability checks based on the possible total cost of the agreement rather than the initial up-front price of the good, so that companies would have to reflect, when doing the affordability check, on what debt people could possibly get into by borrowing in that way, and whether they could pay the money back. We clearly need to change the way affordability checks are done. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that they already do this, but clearly they do not, given the levels of debt that people are getting into. We need to recognise that it is possible for affordability checks to deal with the potential cost of the goods—the doubling of prices—rather than the minimum that someone could pay. They should deal with the maximum that someone could pay.

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield made a powerful point about breathing space. The companies do not give people breathing space when they get into financial difficulty. We want the Government to make a commitment to end fees for debt management. The fact that people have to pay to get out of debt compounds the issue, and I would like a time scale for that change. We recognise that the debt advice industry needs to grow. We would like the Government to use the levy—in fact, to double the levy on the companies—to pay for that. The Minister may want to take up that idea; I do not know. However, we all know that having to pay to get out of debt extends the debt. It makes it harder for people to get into a debt-management agreement. With the companies we are talking about, it would be good to stop the clock once people start the process of getting a debt-management agreement, so that no more interest would be accrued, and there would be no more pressure, visits or BrightHouse knocks on the door.

I encourage the Minister to go further and talk to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about a reinstitution of the social fund—funding for alternative ways in which people could get white goods in particular. I am sure that the Minister will know from his constituency that people cannot go without a washing machine or cooker. We may disagree about iPads but we can certainly agree that there is a case for basic white goods to be provided.

It would be helpful to hear from the Minister about the commitment that the Government made last year to reviewing personal debt. We have not seen any further information, so will he update us on that review and the work that is being done? There is also the issue of how credit histories are affected by this form of predatory lending, because, even if customers get out of payments required for an individual credit agreement, if that affects their future ability to borrow and to go to alternative or mainstream providers, there is a problem.

[Jim Shannon]

I apologise again for not being here for the whole debate. I am conscious of how many good groups there are—I have them in my area—such as the citizens advice bureaux, Christians Against Poverty, the Churches and many others. They offer good advice and can often come to an agreement with the hire purchase companies or mortgage groups to reduce the fees to a payment system that is manageable. Does the hon. Lady think that it is important to recognise what such groups do to help people in poverty and debt?

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my final point, which is that what we really want is an alternative, but for an alternative to exist, it has to be funded, because this is not a fair fight. What I have noticed, as we have exerted pressure on the Government to tackle the payday lending industry, is that it is retreating from our high streets but that it is being replaced by the rent-to-own industry. This industry and legal loan sharking have evolved because there is no reform. We need an industry that works, because we need people to be able to borrow in this way to make ends meet—because they are not earning enough—and we need to end legal loan sharking by reforming the way in which these companies operate. That requires alternatives. However, our credit unions, housing providers and alternative forms of financing are struggling in an environment in which these companies are making a great deal of money from exploiting people. That is why it is right that the Government not only step in and are much tougher about regulating—learning the lesson of capping the cost of credit by capping what these companies can charge—but look at how we support the alternatives to grow and how we can level the playing field.

My final point is about the particular case for mainstream credit providers. Will the Minister commit to talking to mainstream credit providers, particularly to our banks, to ask them to review how many of their customers have entered into these agreements? I think he would be surprised—just as we found with payday lending companies—that half a million customers from one bank alone, who could have gone to it for a personal loan, were going to payday lenders. We need to make the case that these forms of lending and problems with debt are now so mainstream in Britain and so much part of modern life that there is a case not to see this as separate, small industry but part and parcel of how we help people to make ends meet. The mainstream credit providers have a vested interest in working with credit unions and providers—the Hoot credit union, for example—who do alternative forms of white goods provision to help their customers, because the consequences for the mainstream providers will become apparent when people default on their mortgages and personal loans.

This is not an either/or any more. We have to end legal loan sharking in Britain in its many forms. I hope that the Minister will take in good faith those examples of things that he could do now and accept what the priorities are. I look forward to a positive response from him and hope he will join the Opposition, as the cuckoo in the nest, in saying: let us end predatory lending in Britain once and for all.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Although the Minister can finish before 10.57 am, if he would be kind enough to finish no later than that, that will allow Mr Maynard two and a half minutes to wind up the debate.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone; I think it is the first time I have served under your chairmanship in this way.

I start by congratulating my actual and honourable Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on bringing this important subject to Westminster Hall. I also thank Mr Speaker for granting time for the debate. It has been good to hear from all the other contributors to the debate. There was the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), representing the SNP, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—the renaissance man of the 2010 generation in respect of the breadth of subjects on which he contributes in this place; he should be much congratulated on that.

It is always a joy to hear from the shadow Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who brings a great deal of personal experience to these subjects from her time with Citizens Advice. She has been a great campaigner on fee charging, debt management companies and other aspects of the broader sector.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys spoke powerfully and persuasively about the market—not only through personal stories, anecdotes and his experiences with his constituents, but far more broadly. He raised a number of very important points on disclosure, affordability, comparability, repossession, debt advice and financial management. Others have also touched on those subjects; I hope to cover most of them during my remarks and come to some others at the end.

On my hon. Friend’s point about meetings, the Government are always open to hearing from him and other colleagues who have special knowledge and interest in this area, because we have a shared objective to minimise consumer detriment and generally make the market work better.

The Government are committed to supporting hard-working people to be financially independent and resilient, and to save for unexpected events and for the future. Financial matters, as we all know, can be daunting, and making a poorly informed or sometimes just bad financial decision can have far-reaching consequences over a long period. The Government have taken a number of significant steps to improve the consumer credit market and ensure better outcomes for consumers. As well as fundamental reform of the regulatory framework, there is now, as we have heard, a cap on the cost of payday loans to help protect consumers from harm.

Crucially, the Government are also committed to ensuring that consumers are given the education that they need to make better informed financial decisions. Financial education is now on the national curriculum—something that I know a number of hon. Members campaigned for over an extended period. Pupils now learn about the importance of budgeting, sound management of money, credit and debt, as well as how to understand different financial services and products. It is really important in financial education to understand the principles behind these things and not just the products that might currently be on the market. If we had learned about the financial services products on the market when we were all at school, that would have been of absolutely zero relevance to the world we find ourselves in today: we have to learn about the principles of sound personal financial management and budgeting.

The Government are committed to providing sustainable financial services that give customers greater choice in accessing credit. With greater choice comes greater competition, and from greater competition should come—and generally comes—better outcomes for consumers. For example, the Government have already introduced several initiatives to support the credit union sector, including the credit union expansion project—up to £38 million—and the raising of the maximum interest rate from April 2014, which makes it that bit more possible for the credit union sector to compete in higher-cost, higher-customer-risk markets. That will help to allow consumers access to more alternative forms of consumer credit. For example, a consumer may now use a credit union for a loan to buy a household product, rather than go directly to a rent-to-own store.

That said, as my hon. Friend and, I think, the hon. Member for Walthamstow acknowledged, the rent-to-own sector is an important and legitimate part of the consumer credit landscape, allowing people to purchase essential items that they would otherwise have difficulty in finding the lump sum to buy. However, it is important that consumers who use rent-to-own agreements are protected appropriately from harm and adverse outcomes. There are times when unexpected, one-off expenses mean that consumers require access to credit—that happens throughout the income scale in different ways—either to fund shortfalls in income or to replace essential goods. Rent-to-own agreements allow payments to be spread over a long period, which is valuable for some customers on low incomes who do not have access to more mainstream forms of credit such as credit cards or overdrafts, and who lack the savings to be able to purchase household goods up front.

To help deliver the Government’s vision for a well functioning and sustainable consumer credit market that is able to meet consumers’ needs, the Government have fundamentally reformed regulation of the consumer credit market. That has created a new, more robust regulatory system and transferred regulatory responsibility from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority on 1 April last year. The new regime has been designed to strike the right balance between proportionality and consumer protection. The Government have ensured that the FCA has the robust powers that it needs to protect consumers. It will thoroughly assess every firm’s fitness to trade as part of the authorisation process and has put in place binding standards on firms. It proactively monitors the market, focusing on the areas most likely to cause consumer harm, and it has a broad enforcement toolkit to punish breaches of its rules. There is no limit on the fines that it can levy and, crucially, it can force firms to provide redress to consumers.

In the evidence session for the all-party debt and personal finance group’s inquiry into the rent-to-own sector, the FCA expressed concern about firms in the market. It stated—this quote was used earlier—that practices in the sector “rang alarm bells”. For that reason, it has brought forward the authorisation period for these firms to this summer. Rent-to-own firms that wish to obtain authorisation needed to apply by 30 June. That will ensure that any firms that do not reach the rigorous standards required are not able to continue in business and that poor standards start to be driven out of the market.

With regard to the price of credit, the Government believe that consumers should be protected from unfair costs and charges in the market. The Government showed their commitment by legislating to require the FCA to introduce a cap on the cost of payday loans, which came into force on 2 January 2015. The Government were clear that an interest rate cap or a cap that covered only some of the fees and charges that payday lenders may impose would be ineffective; I remember discussing some of the finer points of that sentence at some length with the hon. Member for Walthamstow. The FCA therefore designed a cap to include all fees and charges that may be incurred in relation to a payday loan, including arrangement fees and default penalties.

The Government legislated to give the FCA the power to cap the cost of all forms of credit. They have placed a duty on the FCA to use that power to impose a cap on the cost of payday loans because of the clear evidence of consumer detriment in that sector. The objective was to target payday lenders. However, the FCA retains the power to cap the cost of all forms of credit if it thinks that that is necessary to protect consumers, and it has said that it will keep the issue of capping the cost of credit in other markets under review.

[Stella Creasy]

Can the Minister set out for us, then, what evidence he would look for in order to introduce a cap on the charges that the rent-to-own sector may impose? I wonder whether he has a note that will help him to explain what levels of detriment, of costs, would have to apply. Some of us may argue that the cap on the payday lending industry is a little high at the moment, but it could be brought down. The Minister makes the point about a test. What tests would he set?

[Damian Hinds]

The test would be to appoint a regulator that we believe in and give it the tools to be able to make the decisions—give it the enforcement powers and the analytical capability—rather than, as a Government, meddling in the individual decisions on the details of the regulation. Appointing a regulator is historically how we have done things in this country, not just in this market but in others. It does not always please everyone all the time. Sometimes, people may feel that things should move more quickly or more slowly or be somewhat different, but in general it is a good way to protect consumers.

If at some point we think that the regulatory system in toto is not working, we change the regulatory system, but I do not think that it is right for Government necessarily to have a prescriptive answer to every subsection of the market; as the hon. Member for Walthamstow rightly said, this market, in its broader form, has a remarkable ability to shape-shift. If we go very specifically after one part of it and try to change one specific practice, we will find that something else changes somewhere else that we did not know about. That is why it is important to have this broad regulatory framework that includes high-level principles of fairness to the consumer, with the regulator stepping in to license and delicense operators when it feels that that is necessary.

[Stella Creasy]

Obviously, the Minister will be conscious that doing nothing has consequences, too; we have seen that in relation to all the people we have been talking about today, who have been ripped off by these companies. The Minister will also be aware that, on payday lending, the Government did not accept the argument that he is putting forward—that the Government should not intervene and set a cap—and did recognise the need to set a series of tests. Opposition Members would be incredibly sympathetic if he wanted to break his vow of libertarian conservatism and say, “Actually, there is a need to intervene because we see this predatory behaviour in this industry.” I want to press him. Is he saying that he would be opposed to learning the lessons from payday lending and to the Government’s stepping in and introducing proposals for a cap on the rent-to-own sector, despite the consequences of doing nothing, which we are seeing now?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady, although passionate, is not right when she says, “The Government did specifically this.” The Government put a duty on the FCA with regard to that part of the market. They also, at the same time, gave a power to the FCA to do something in parallel, in other parts of the broader consumer credit market, if it deemed that necessary.

Ultimately, individual organisations make their own commercial decisions on prices, interest rates and default fees for their products. However, the Government believe that it is in the interest of lenders to consider the impact on their customers and, of course, to treat them fairly.

On the affordability of credit, rent-to-own firms must fulfil a number of requirements. When the responsibility for regulating consumer credit transferred from the OFT to the FCA, the FCA turned key elements of the OFT’s irresponsible lending guidance into binding rules. Those are enforceable with the full range of FCA enforcement powers. They set out that a firm should assess the customer’s creditworthiness, having particular regard to the potential for the commitments to impact adversely on the consumer’s financial situation and taking into account information that the firm is or ought reasonably to be aware of at the time and the consumer’s ability to make repayments as they fall due. The FCA’s rules are aimed at strengthening consumer protection and are based on the simple principle that money should be lent only to a person who can afford to repay it. Firms are also provided with greater clarity on what is expected of them and the sanctions if they lend irresponsibly.

Rent-to-own firms, like all consumer credit businesses, are required to make affordability checks for consumers taking out an agreement. The FCA makes it clear that a firm should lend responsibly and should take reasonable steps to assess the customer’s ability to make repayments in a sustainable manner, without undue difficulties and without having to borrow further. Ultimately, credit should be extended to a consumer only if they can afford it. The extent and scope of affordability checks are determined by a number of factors, which include, as well as the financial position of the customer, their vulnerability and in particular whether the firm understands that the customer has some form of mental capacity limitation or reasonably suspects that to be so. Some of the casework examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys throw that requirement into sharp relief. In addition to that, on 23 February 2015 the FCA published a paper on consumer vulnerability and a practitioners’ pack to assist firms in addressing the needs of customers in vulnerable circumstances.

Some concern has been expressed that rent-to-own agreements are not always adequately explained to consumers before they enter into them. That point was made from the Opposition Benches. The FCA requires firms to provide adequate pre-contractual explanations to enable consumers to assess whether the proposed credit agreement suits their needs and financial situation. Consumers can compare the cash price quoted in the pre-contractual information with the price of equivalent goods elsewhere to decide on the best deal. That ensures that consumers have the ability to make the financial decision that best suits their needs.

The Government are aware that consumers are sometimes required to take out insurance and service deals when entering into a rent-to-own agreement and that that could cause consumer detriment. Although there is concern that those deals raise the total cost of an agreement, the Government have ensured that where insurance is required as a condition of credit, the cost of the insurance must be factored into the APR, so that consumers can make a comparison on the basis of total costs and make informed decisions about the agreement that they are entering into. Furthermore, when firms sell insurance products, they must do so in line with the FCA’s requirements about assessing consumers’ eligibility to claim on a product.

The reforms made to consumer regulation by the Government and the FCA have given consumers new protections, and the regulatory framework means that consumers will continue to be protected in the future. It is important that avenues of credit remain open to those who need them, while consumers are protected from harmful practices.

[Stella Creasy]

I have asked the Minister about the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the commitments given to hon. Members by BIS Ministers that these practices—the selling of warranties and insurance products—would be covered by consumer rights legislation. The things that he is saying do not quite match what those Ministers said. Can he clarify whether he has spoken to the Ministers in BIS about the Consumer Rights Act and its role in tackling the bundling up and selling of insurance products and warranties, and will he commit to raising that issue with the consumer rights implementation group? If nothing else, he could get that group to look at whether being required to buy an additional product when someone simply wants to buy the original product breaches basic consumer rights.

[Damian Hinds]

I will have to write to the hon. Lady about the details of the regulation on bundling. In general, price bundling in markets is not illegal, but on the specifics of this market I will have to get back to her.

The Government have set up the Money Advice Service, which provides a single point of debt advice for consumers and allows those who face problems with debt to obtain free and impartial money advice. This year, MAS will spend £47 million on debt advice, delivering through its third sector partners an increase of almost £9 million on the previous year.

It is important to take a joined-up approach to the provision of free debt advice. Following the independent review of MAS, the Government welcomed the creation of a debt advice steering group, which will help to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of free debt advice provision by bringing together senior representatives of the debt advice charities, high street banks, water and energy bodies and devolved organisations.

[Damian Hinds]

The steering group will be an open forum to involve all relevant and interested parties, and I take on board the point that the hon. Lady makes. I wanted to come back to a point that she raised earlier, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys also mentioned: where the consumer stands in relation to part-paid goods. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 states that in a hire purchase agreement, a court order is required to repossess goods if a third of the total cost has been repaid. Furthermore, where 50% of the total price has been repaid, a consumer can return a product without penalty and the agreement will finish.

[Stella Creasy]

One thing that we see with such companies is that they move the goalposts with consumers. First, they do not tell consumers that a court order is required to repossess goods. Secondly, the amount that constitutes 50% moves, because of some of the charges applied. Will the Minister commit to reviewing that area? As he says, consumer protection exists, but because companies change how they lend to people, consumer rights are not being upheld.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. It is one thing to have rights, but another to know what they are. That is not restricted to the rent-to-own sector or to consumer credit, and organisations such as Citizens Advice have an important role to play in making that plain. It is an important part of disclosure for firms to make that known. The regulatory regime and enforcement are designed to provide confidence that that is happening in reality.

That brings me to my more general concluding point. We are in a new era, with a new framework. I pay tribute to Martin Wheatley and the FCA for the speed at which they have introduced a more positive framework. Many of us have taken an interest in consumer credit issues and detriments in the market over several years, and the FCA framework now contains a lot of what people have asked for. In addition, I pay tribute to hon. Members from all parts of the House who have taken a constant interest in the subject and kept it at the forefront of public policy debate.

None of the issues that we have talked about today is new. The leading home credit provider first came into being in Victorian times, catalogue lending has been with us for as long as anybody here can remember and rent-to-own shops existed long before 2010. Moreover, the market can and does change; we talked earlier about its ability to shape-shift. The Government have adopted a proportionate approach to the market. The hon. Lady suggested that I might have felt constrained by being in coalition between 2010 and 2015. I wonder what constrained her, or her colleagues in the Labour party, for the 13 years before 2010, when they did not do all the things that she is now demanding from the Government of today.

More broadly, I think that the approach has to be a judicious combination of financial education, sensible regulation and ensuring that alternatives are available. In all three of those areas during the past five years there has been a significant shift, with the inclusion of financial education on the national curriculum, the new FCA framework, Government support for the credit union sector and the accompanying regulatory change.

Rent-to-own is an important part of the consumer credit market. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys is absolutely right to keep our focus on it, and we will continue the dialogue.