Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

What I can promise the hon. Lady is that the Government are committed to funding local government with a settlement, which was announced before the election, of an additional 4.4% in real-terms increase that will give local authorities that additional spending power alongside the youth investment fund announcement that I mentioned earlier.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that young people in Wycombe are not disadvantaged by excessively coarse aggregate measures of deprivation, which can obscure real need in constituencies such as mine?

[John Glen]

I recognise the challenge of getting to the heart of the problems in different constituencies, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to better understand his specific concerns so that we can get to the heart of the problem in his constituency.

Co-operative and Mutual Businesses

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure and a privilege to follow the lead of the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). I sometimes disappoint him in other matters, but I salute his work on furthering the co-operative movement.

I will never forget the moment when I fell in love with the principles and ideas of the co-operative and mutual movement. Shortly after my election, I had been encouraged to study a book called “Working-Class Patients and the Medical Establishment” by David Green, who now runs the Civitas think-tank, and the moment that I mention came when I read this quote—I hope that Members will forgive the old-fashioned language—taken from the Oddfellows Magazine on the eve of the passage of the National Insurance Act 1911:

“Working men are awakening to the fact that this is a subtle attempt to take from the class to which they belong the administration of the great voluntary organisations which they have built up for themselves, and to hand over the future control to the paid servants of the governing class… This is not liberty; this is not development of self-government, but a new form of autocracy and tyranny not less but the more dangerous because it is benevolent in its intentions.”

That speaks to the kind of radicalism that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) introduced to the debate. Perhaps it is a spirit too radical for our age, but it is pretty obvious that, in so many countries around the world, there is a crisis of political economy and a lack of faith not only in the institutions of government but in the institutions of market economy. I am grateful to see Opposition Members nodding, and in that spirit we need to recapture some of that radicalism. It is about free individuals in society standing up not only for themselves but against entrenched interests and entrenched power better to serve their families and their communities. That was the moment when I realised, as a free market Conservative, that I perhaps had something to learn from the traditions of the left.

What is it that make co-operatives different? A briefing supplied by Co-operatives UK states:

“What makes co-ops different is how they allow people to democratically own and control the things that really make a difference—like capital, organisation and scale—so that these create real value for people and planet. They are one of the best tools we have for applying social responsibility, solidarity and democracy in a market setting.”

Perhaps it is that language of solidarity and democracy in the market that frightens off some of my Conservative colleagues, which I very much regret.

The Rochdale principles of the movement’s founding pioneers talk of open membership; democratic control— one person, one vote—not based on share ownership; distribution of surplus in proportion to trade, which is economic participation; payment of limited interest on capital; political and religious neutrality; cash trading, so that people do not get into credit trouble on the basics; and the promotion of education.

Those principles have of course been refined by the International Co-operative Alliance to open and voluntary membership; democratic governance; limited return on equity; surplus belonging to members; the education of members and the public in co-operative principles—my goodness, we could do with more of that; and co-operation between co-operatives.

If we accept, and I am afraid that today it is a question of if, that prices, profit and loss are the only way to co-ordinate a global society of billions of people, and if we accept that we must live in a free market society to best serve one another, it is time to look at civil society—that great panoply of institutions between the individual and the state—and ask how that inclusive spirit of free enterprise shared by mutuals and co-operatives can help to rebuild people’s faith not only in a market economy but in government. We therefore need to recapture the Rochdale principles, and I encourage my colleagues on the Treasury Bench to think carefully about how a Conservative Government can stand for some of these principles in a market economy.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman and I are bitter opponents over the UK’s future in Europe, but we sometimes put that to one side. We are working together on a new initiative called FairLife—he knows I agree with the Rochdale principles—to open up the system so that people know they are getting a fair deal on financial services, just as they know they are buying ethical products through Fairtrade.

[Mr Baker]

I always enjoy my moments of agreement with the hon. Gentleman, and of course regret those moments when we disagree. Hopefully I will persuade him one day of the correctness of my cause in that other matter.

Co-operatives and mutuals, throughout the history of society, have played a really important role in standing against tyranny and monopoly power, whether it was the Rochdale pioneers providing good-quality food for themselves, their families and their children or, as I discovered in my research, the African-American communities that used co-ops and mutuals during the despicable Jim Crow era to provide aid to one another when they were denied it by the state, whether through unjust laws or extra-legally. I am advised that the Mondragon co-operatives were founded in the Basque country partly as a response to the oppression of Franco.

More recently, Taxiapp allows drivers in London to fight back against the competition of Uber. Of course, farmers co-operate through co-operatives in a way that should be expanded.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fantastic work of Drive, the new taxi co-operative in Cardiff? In Wales we call on Drive to take us somewhere, which is exactly what it does. The co-operative is a response to some of the practices of the private-hire sector, the influence of Uber and others. It is doing fantastic work, supported by the Wales Co-operative Centre.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, as I was not aware of Drive—I shall certainly Google it after this debate.

We need to ask ourselves why, given all the benefits of co-operatives and mutuals, they have not advanced further. They flourish, but why have they not advanced further? I was reflecting on why the Thatcher Government of my youth did not understand the great value that could come through inclusive free market participation with co-ops. They never got as far as embracing mutuality. That language of “solidarity” and “democratic participation” perhaps frightens off Conservatives. For too long, we have been afraid of some of these ideas of the left, and a more communitarian and voluntarist Conservative party should be embracing this idea of equality and market participation, not exclusively but as an important component of our society. I once heard the term “a parastatal”, and I wonder whether the idea of an enormous “The Co-op”—that enormous group of co-operatives—frightened off Conservative Governments in the past. I am encouraged that the “Open Public Services” White Paper of the coalition years makes provision for more mutuality in public services. I very much hope that when we get past our current distractions we might return to some of those ideas.

It has been suggested to me that one reason the Thatcher Government were not very good at embracing co-operatives was the preceding Labour Government’s failed attempts in the ’70s to turn failing companies into co-ops or co-op-like entities. Although I philosophically really embrace the hon. Member for Harrow West’s ideas about turning RBS into a co-op, and he and I have previously discussed the idea of Channel 4 becoming a co-op—

[Mr Sheerman]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

I will just finish the point. Enormous sums of capital are involved, particularly in relation to banks, so I have some misgivings that we might repeat the errors of the past. With that, I, of course, accept the hon. Gentleman’s help.

[Mr Sheerman]

Let me help the hon. Gentleman on the history, because I knew Margaret Thatcher and her attitude to co-ops. We have to remember that she was the daughter of a small shopkeeper and traditionally saw the Co-op as the great competitor. She had an old-fashioned view of co-ops and what they meant, and she would never shop in one; there was a tradition that those on the radical side did not shop in co-ops, because they were the competition. I hope that that bit of history adds to his knowledge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

Of course I did know that, but the hon. Gentleman has certainly added colour to my understanding of the idea that we are all prisoners of where we come from, and perhaps that was one of the reasons. Now is the time we can have a renewal in our understanding of what can be achieved. Today, as the hon. Member for Harrow West set out, co-operatives are extremely important. They give an opportunity for people to gain control and agency over local economies, whether in land trusts or in other areas—we have mentioned public services. I will never forget listening to a young woman talking highly entrepreneurially about how a social care co-operative was working. It was remarkable to listen to the degree of ownership that lady felt. In other circumstances, she might have been doing “just” the valuable work of practically caring for a person, but in addition she felt really engaged in the operation of the business. That is an entirely noble thing. It is part of the process of becoming what it is to be human—to be really engaged like that in how these businesses run.

I wish to bring a few matters to the Government’s attention, and again this comes from Co-operatives UK. These are a few of the barriers out there and some policy options, which I would like the Government to consider. Co-operatives UK suggests:

“Fertile conditions for co-op formation are often absent”

because, for example, there is a shortage of

“social capital and limited devolution of economic power and funding to the community level.”

Going back to the 1911 Act, I wonder whether this is a part of a broader trend over 100 or more years, and whether we need to make sure that social capital and the devolution of economic power facilitate mutual and co-ops. Co-operatives UK then cites:

“Established cultures and norms of behaviour”,

with people sometimes “culturally disinclined to co-operate”. We need to think of ways we can encourage people to join in co-operatives.

There is, of course, a lack of awareness, practical understanding and good advice about this, which, I am sorry to say, we can witness on my side of the House today; too few Conservatives understand the role of co-operatives and mutuals. We could do more, as a Government, to explain to people the role of mutual and co-ops in a free society. Co-op frameworks are not as user-friendly as they should be, and we have heard some examples of that.

Of course, I support what the hon. Member for Harrow West said about building societies and extending capitalisation opportunities to other co-ops. I remember opposing the demutualisation of building societies as a young man. I did not really know why at the time; it just seemed instinctively wrong not to have that plurality. Our corporate frameworks and governance arrangements should be friendlier to co-ops. Members have touched on financing challenges, and they are generally part of the operating environment.

The proposals from Co-operatives UK include:

“Rather than giving all the funding and power to LEPs”—

local enterprise partnerships, in England—

“government could commit 25 per cent of the new UK Shared Prosperity Fund for community economic development”.

The Government should certainly consider that, along with encouraging LEPs to look seriously at the role of co-ops in their local communities through local industrial strategies.

Co-operatives UK proposes that there should be a social-investment tax relief, suggesting that we should:

“Use the current review of Social Investment Tax Relief to make it more supportive of Community Shares, by making community investment in land and real estate, housing development, sustainable agriculture and renewable energy eligible.”

It also suggests employee ownership tax support and help for co-ops with making tax digital, which is something of a curse on a number of small businesses.

I have reservations about the idea of dormant assets being used to support co-ops. My concern is related not to co-ops, but to the idea that dormant assets are someone’s property. We should be a little cautious there, but Co-operatives UK has made that recommendation. It also proposes legal reform to ensure that we bring things up to date and support co-ops in the law.

At this time of great political turmoil, not only in the UK but in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece and the USA, we need to think extremely seriously about the institutions that we have and how to make them flourish. A great and wise defender of the liberal market order once wrote:

“Society is co-operation; it is community in action.”

I very much hope that, through the kind of collaboration we see in the House today, we might one day educate Members of Parliament and the public as to what that idea of society as co-operation really means, and through doing that reinvigorate our society and better fit it for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example, which underlines the point I am making. Given that these local government structures, and the policies that they are adopting, are in their infancy, it demonstrates the potential that might be available in those areas for other local government structures to actively promote co-operation.

[Mr Baker]

I should have intervened earlier, but I wanted to check something before I put it on the record. A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman pleaded for updated legislation, pointing out that the industrial and provident society legislation is out of date. I remind the Minister, who I can see is listening very closely to his speech, that in 2010 we promised a co-operatives Bill, but then, when it came forward, it was just a consolidation Bill—a tidying up exercise. I was very disappointed by that, as I expect the hon. Gentleman was. Let me say gently to my hon. Friend the Minister that if we do promise a Bill again, we really must make sure that it is a meaningful Bill that brings the legislation up to date.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that prompt to the Minister. Hopefully it is even more effective coming from his side of the House than from mine.

I will conclude by making one or two general observations. First, we have an economy where a huge number of people feel alienated or not engaged with the world of work that is controlling so much of their life. When there is so much international investment—welcome though it is, and sometimes deployed very effectively—that means that decision making and huge swathes of our economy are often centred in offshore countries or very far removed from the control of the company’s employees.

For the past 10 years, we have suffered from low productivity. It is an issue that does not seem to get any better. In terms of taxation and public expenditure, there are still huge swathes of the economy where the companies involved are not paying an appropriate level of taxation. It is interesting to note that the co-op movement pays more in taxes to the Government than a whole range of high-tech companies, including Google and Amazon. Developing the mutual sector would at least ensure that as these companies grow, they are paying the sort of taxation returns to the Government that would more than pay for any help they had had from Government.

I do not claim that the co-operative and mutual movement is a silver bullet for all these problems, but their performance in terms of both longevity—there are far higher survival rates among new co-operatives than other businesses—and worker satisfaction means that there is a strong case for far more proactive Government involvement and support. To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), I hope the Government will look at introducing a co-operatives Bill that will actively deliver on the ground.

2019 Loan Charge

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the 2019 loan charge.

I will take a moment to say how glad I am to serve once again under your chairmanship from the Back Benches, Mr Walker.

It is right that everyone, both individuals and corporations, should pay the correct amount of tax, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to a fairer tax system. I was pleased to see that the UK’s tax gap has fallen to a record low of 5.7% in recent months.

I should start by explaining what the loan charge is. The gov.uk website explains:

“Loan schemes—otherwise known as ‘disguised remuneration’ schemes—are used to avoid paying Income Tax and National Insurance.”

The loan charge was announced at the 2016 Budget. The policy ensures that users of tax avoidance loan schemes pay their share of tax and is expected to protect £3.2 billion for the UK’s vital public services. The website also says:

“The loan charge works by adding together all outstanding loans and taxing them as income in one year.”

Therein lies the difficulty, and the fundamental cause of the impact on individuals and families.

In 2005, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said:

“Certainty and transparency are the hallmarks of a fair, effective and competitive tax system. A taxpayer is entitled to know with certainty…what he may or may not do in planning his tax affairs.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1139.]

That is why I object to retrospective legislation that undermines the rule of law.

The introduction of the 2019 loan charge has been beset by challenges, confusion and complications. Over 100 MPs have signed early-day motion 1239 calling on the Government to significantly revise this piece of legislation. I am glad we are meeting today in this well-attended debate to consider the impact of the loan charge.

In the 2016 Budget, the Government announced that they would introduce legislation to tackle disguised remuneration schemes. Statutory provision was included in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, with further provisions included in the Finance Bill introduced after the autumn Budget last November, now the Finance Act 2018. The Government say they will protect £3.2 billion by taking action to tackle both historic and continued use of these schemes. That is a not inconsiderable sum. It will include a new charge on loans paid through disguised remuneration schemes that have not been taxed and are still outstanding on 5 April 2019.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs states that the schemes affected by the 2019 loan charge were not and never have been legal. However, that is disputed by the Loan Charge Action Group. I refer to a letter by the Chancellor of the 19th of this month, published today on the Treasury Committee website. The Chancellor writes:

“Finally, I would like to clarify my comments to the Committee in reference to the use of disguised remuneration (DR) schemes which I described as ‘tax evasion’. I should have said ‘tax avoidance,’ and that in the Government’s view, tax was always due.”

That is a very important distinction, because evasion is illegal, while avoidance is an undesirable and unintended use of Parliament’s legislation. In drawing that distinction and correcting the record to say “avoidance”, the Chancellor has made an important concession.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. As a former personal finance editor before entering this place, I used to have many inquiries from readers about these schemes as they were offered to them. My advice was always, “Steer clear, because eventually the price will be paid.” Does he agree that there is a role for regulators to look at the poor and potentially dangerous advice given by accountants about these schemes?

[Mr Baker]

It is my intention in my concluding remarks to stridently condemn the promoters of these schemes, who have ended up luring people into misery through what they have done.

Before closing with this letter, I want to mention that the Chancellor also wrote:

“It is not normal, or indeed reasonable, to be paid in loans that are not repaid in practice. It is not fair to the vast majority of taxpayers who pay their taxes in full and on time for anyone to benefit from contrived avoidance of this sort and that is why this government has legislated the charge on DR loans.”

I agree with the Chancellor that it is not normal or reasonable, but I make it very clear that I place the blame on the promoters of these schemes.

HMRC initially expected 40,000 people to be affected, although in a recent parliamentary question, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave a new figure of 50,000. HMRC’s impact note stated:

“The government anticipates that some of these individuals will become insolvent as a result.”

The Loan Charge Action Group suggests that the loan charge will end up affecting probably upwards of 100,000 people and their families.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) has tabled an EDM criticising the measure, arguing that

“retrospectively taxing something that was technically allowed at the time, is unfair”.

Of course, I would agree. HMRC has argued that the loan charge is a new tax on a new source, and described it as retroactive rather than retrospective. I would like the Minister, if he can, to explain both terms and any difference that the Treasury is implying.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman deserves a lot of credit for bringing this issue to the House. Does he agree that we should be working cross-party ahead of the Report stage of this year’s Finance Bill to put together a new clause that deals with the problem, under which any loan charge would come into effect only after Royal Assent of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017?

[Mr Baker]

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a job of work to be done across parties to uphold the rule of law, in particular the principle that legislation should not apply retrospectively. That is a subject on which I have made speeches over the years. We end up in a hideous cycle of undesired action, in particular to avoid taxation, followed by the injustice of retrospective action to protect other taxpayers and the misery that causes to large numbers of people. It must be brought to an end, but underpinning that we must be committed to the rule of law.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the Chamber. Can I ask him about retrospection? My constituent, Alan Williams FCA, points out that HMRC already had sufficient power to recover tax from individuals, so it is rather its own convenience and its unwillingness to apply its existing powers that have led to this legislation. My constituent Andy Pocock points out that in his case, he has procedures under the existing legislation whereby he is allowed to appeal, but all that will be cut off retrospectively by the new legislation and he will not have a chance to fight and defend his corner.

[Mr Baker]

One of Parliament’s duties is to restrain the Executive and ensure that their powers are reasonable. We should look carefully at the subject that my right hon. Friend has just raised. It is important that HMRC treats people in a decent and civilised way, and certainly more powers ought not to be taken than are strictly necessary.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on securing a debate on this subject. One of the iniquities, in addition to the issue of retrospectivity, is that at least four of the constituents who have been to see me have said that they were told by their companies that unless they signed these new forms of contractual relationships, they would not continue to work for those companies. Given that, should not HMRC be pursuing the companies and not the individuals?

[Mr Baker]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Toward the end of my remarks I will come on to the solutions that I propose, but I entirely agree with him that if any company insisted on people engaging in these arrangements it certainly should share the responsibility for what they did.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Baker]

I will take one or two more interventions, and then I will move on. It is not quite like being a Minister, but very nearly.

[Teresa Pearce]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time and I thank him for securing this debate. On that last point, my constituent was a civil servant for 37 years. In 2010, his team was TUPE-ed from the Ministry of Defence to Hewlett-Packard. He retired in 2013. In 2014, they asked him back to oversee a Ministry of Defence contract, but refused to take him back on pay-as-you-earn and said they would only do it through one of these vehicles. Should my constituent not have had some comfort from the fact that this was an MOD contract? Surely the Government and Government Departments should look at who they are contracting with, to ensure that a man such as this, in his retirement years, is not stung by this charge?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I obviously cannot comment on individual circumstances. However, this is a good opportunity to draw a distinction between taking people on as contractors and insisting that they join schemes that could end up with their using disguised remuneration arrangements. On the one hand, contracting is a legitimate way of going about business; on the other, engaging in disguised remuneration schemes—an aggressive form of tax avoidance—is not desirable.

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is doing a sterling job of raising this matter in this place. On that basis, will he challenge the Minister on how many firms have been investigated, how many promoters have been pursued and prosecuted, and how many of those had some connection to Government contracts or payments?

[Mr Baker]

I join my right hon. Friend’s call for the Minister to set that out, which my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard. I will now make some progress.

The Loan Charge Action Group says that the human impact of receiving a bill for up to 10 years’ worth of tax will have a catastrophic effect on individuals and their families. On whom among us would it not have a catastrophic effect? It goes on to say that we are looking at thousands of bankruptcies, family break-ups and suicide attempts, as well as mental illness, unemployment, loss of abode and more. That is a catalogue of human suffering and misery.

HMRC’s impact assessment of the measure says:

“This package is not expected to have a material impact on family formation, stability or breakdown.”

However, that looks at aggregates, not the impact on individuals, which it seems to me is a common mistake of Government. As a Conservative, I wish to focus first and foremost on the individual, not the collective.

I will foreshorten my remarks, given the interventions I have taken. One specific complaint is the lack of warning. A freedom of information request revealed that HMRC has issued about 23,000 loan charge awareness letters, which were only issued from the second quarter of 2018. HMRC says that 50,000 individuals may be affected, so many will be unaware of the impending charge. The Loan Charge Action Group points out that the opportunities to settle new tax affairs with HMRC ahead of the charge were similarly not widely publicised, nor was the deadline of 31 May 2018, leaving people in a terrible fix, although I understand that the deadline has been quietly dropped.

The Loan Charge Action Group suggests that historical users of schemes who left many years ago are probably completely ignorant of this new legislation and will only hear of it after receiving a large bill some time in 2020. This is a dreadful risk, which the Government should forestall.

I am keen to conclude, so I will come to some solutions that I ask the Minister to consider. As I outlined in a letter to the Chancellor in September, there should be clarity about what DOTAS—disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—registration means. There should be a legally mandated text accompanying every advertisement of a DOTAS-registered scheme that explains that the purpose of registration is to enable HMRC to identify tax liabilities and to recover them when such schemes are proven not to work. It does not imply any kind of legitimacy, and registration with HMRC is not for the purpose of endorsing the schemes. When HMRC becomes aware that a taxpayer has subscribed to a DOTAS-registered scheme, it should contact the taxpayer and make them aware that registration has the purpose of enforcement and does not convey legitimacy. HMRC must take into account people’s circumstances, and the threat of insolvency should never be used as a kind of extrajudicial punishment.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

On treating individuals fairly, it is pretty evident that the people who have been selling these questionable products are not being pursued in the way that they should be. In view of that, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should start looking at mitigation, so that certain individuals—I know of a couple in my constituency—are not bankrupted by this whole sorry affair?

[Mr Baker]

The Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s point, which I endorse.

The loan charge should apply from Royal Assent onwards. In other words, it should be prospective—a case I have made many times—not retroactive or retrospective. HMRC should be more proactive in advising that such schemes are likely to end in tax charges in the future, and perhaps far into the future. More steps should be taken against promoters and introducers of such schemes. They are the ones profiting from this misery. Finally, the issue of employment status and IR35 requires action at last, to bring the uncertainty to an end.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

My hon. Friend wants further action taken against the promoters of these schemes. Does he agree that we also need to take action against the Queen’s counsel who peddled rinky-dink advice that encouraged many of our constituents—including some of mine—to participate in these schemes, in the belief that a QC’s opinion rendered them beyond the reach of HMRC?

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I hesitate to trespass far beyond my expertise, but I make the point that it is often thought that the opinion of a QC determines the truth. That is not the case. QCs and barristers argue among themselves in court, and the court determines the facts. I am often struck by people relying on the opinions of lawyers when what they actually need is the judgment of a court.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

On the judgment of courts, does my hon. Friend share my concern that individuals are sometimes effectively left without a remedy, because the person who gave them that advice so many years ago no longer continues to trade? There is then effectively no remedy for the individual and no ability for them to claw back their significant losses.

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In concluding my remarks, I shall allow what he says to stand.

I really think that it is perfectly natural for people to want to pay less tax, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not say to all those paying attention to the debate that, when something seems too good to be true, it probably is. We ought not ever to allow ourselves to be lured into schemes that offer absurdly low rates of tax. However, I save my strident condemnation for the promoters of these schemes, who, in their advertisements, seek to persuade people that this is legitimate activity and to create the impression that DOTAS registration conveys some kind of legitimacy or endorsement by the state. That is an outrage, because of course it encourages people to participate. These promoters are, frankly, wicked. It is a great evil to encourage people into these schemes and to leave them in misery afterwards.

Finally, we must insist on the rule of law. Notwithstanding the wicked conduct of promoters, the greater wickedness in the end is to undermine the rule of law—the certainty that comes from someone knowing that if their actions were lawful at the time they were carried out, they will not subsequently be challenged through retrospective legislation. I feel most strongly about that, as I have throughout my time in Parliament. I urge the Government, whatever evils have been done by the promoters of these schemes, to abandon the practice of retrospective legislation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

This House has the chance and the opportunity to put this wrong right. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said at the end of his speech, there will be a Report stage to the current Finance Bill. It will come to the Floor of the House and we—every Member here today of whatever party, whoever signed the early-day motion—have the power to come together, cross-party, and pass a new clause to right this wrong. Frankly, words in a Westminster Hall debate and signatures on an EDM mean nothing unless we are prepared to go through the Lobby to vote this tyrannous legislation down. Constituents, the Loan Charge Action Group and all the people affected will expect their Members of Parliament to vote and act and not simply talk. Today gives us a platform to make sure we send a powerful message to Treasury Ministers that this is a catalyst for the action that was not taken two years ago, but will be taken, I believe, when we get to the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

As has been said by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), there is a fundamental principle here that he and I can agree on: the rule of law. When we talk about British values, about which he and I agree, the rule of law is something the Department for Education says should be taught in every school up and down our country. Well, this is the test. Either Members of Parliament believe in the rule of law and what our children are taught, or they do not. When we vote on the new clause in the Finance Bill, as I am sure we will be asked to, we will see whether we really do believe in the rule of law.

[Mr Baker]

As one liberal to another, it is a delight to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope members of the public will not think I am engaging in too much levity if I say that some of us are engaged in enough rebellion already. I should be very grateful indeed if the Government tabled their own amendment to deal with this matter, so that we do not find ourselves engaged in any sort of rebellion on the Finance Bill.

[Sir Edward Davey]

It was a pleasure to allow that intervention. I have no objection to the way in which the wrong is righted, as long as it is righted properly. If we stick to the principle of the rule of law, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Gentleman, ending retrospection in this tax change means that any charge prior to Royal Assent of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017 must end. There can be no charges before Royal Assent of that Act; otherwise we are in the area of retrospection.

Like other colleagues, I have had constituents contacting me. Sixteen have contacted me directly, and in my experience that means there are many more out there who have not contacted me. I will read from just one, from Mr Garry Taylor, who talks about the “devastating consequences” that will destroy the finances of “me and my family”. I do not know about other colleagues, but I have had people almost in tears in my surgery over a tax matter, which has never happened before in 20 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to everyone who has come to the debate and participated. The debate has overwhelmingly avoided straying into the partisan, for which I am grateful. I listened carefully to all the speeches and I do not think anyone stood up and sided with those who think it is legitimate to be paid through loans that have been made with no intention of repayment—no one stood on that side of the argument. What we have seen is how people have been drawn, or even driven, into such schemes, and that is the heart of the injustice.

We have heard stories of human suffering that would melt any heart, which brings us on to the heart of the matter—the rule of law. Once again, my hon. Friend the Minister has earned my admiration, because he seems to get all the Treasury’s toughest gigs. I sometimes wonder whether he should have been promoted to the Department for Exiting the European Union for a little break.

[John Glen]

No thanks.

[Mr Baker]

He will have heard the response of people present when he explained that the measure is not retrospective, and I really hope that the Treasury goes away, looks at the measure again and eliminates retrospection. When people have acted in good faith under advice and end up subject to injustice, we must uphold the principle of the rule of law. Some might then say that they had got away with it, but sometimes we have to say, “While we don’t stand on their side and we accept that it was not Parliament’s intent, we respect that there is a price to be paid for upholding the rule of law so that in the end we can preserve human liberty and justice.”

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Business Banking Fraud

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Wragg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the role of GRG.

Following the cases of, at times, blatant mistreatment and fraud, which we saw consistently and across the board, there is either a lack of willingness or lack of capability from our investigative bodies, both civil and criminal, to pursue complaints. Instead, the victims of mistreatment and fraud are left to go round in circles making a series of fruitless complaints. The complaints are either made directly to the institutions that defrauded them in the first place, which have a vested interest not to investigate properly—as was the case with my constituent and the Royal Bank of Scotland—or referred to a series of industry-led trade bodies or the Financial Conduct Authority, which does not take on individual cases. It is simply not good enough.

The only successful prosecution for fraud thus far has been that of HBOS in Reading. That was not down to the actions of our regulator or the Serious Fraud Office relentlessly pursuing the truth to bring the perpetrators to justice. Indeed, the bank—first as HBOS and then as Lloyds, after the takeover—insisted there was no fraud, despite there being a victim with losses in the hundreds of millions of pounds.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I want to put on record my personal admiration for the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, Anthony Stansfeld, who personally saw to it that the fraud was prosecuted.

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the current situation is not good enough. If the state is to fulfil its duty to protect the public from fraud, it will be necessary for the Government to find the money to equip the authorities to prosecute fraud cases without funds coming out of individual PCCs’ budgets.

[Mr Wragg]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. I pay tribute to the police and crime commissioner, but I also wish to pay tribute to a couple of people who I believe are here in the Gallery today. Instead of the authorities investigating, it was left to a couple of music producers from Cambridge, Paul and Nikki Turner, to crack the case. I hope they are here in Parliament. They are still fighting for compensation for other victims of the crime.

European Affairs

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to today’s debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part. I have very much enjoyed closely following the debate and the valuable contributions that have been made, and I am sorry that I will not be able to acknowledge them all in the eight minutes that remain.

I want to acknowledge the range of advice that the Government have been given, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who made a strong case for no deal, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who made a strong argument for the customs union and EFTA, to which I will return in a moment. I was also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) for representing his constituents by supporting the Prime Minister’s centre ground position.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019, a date that is fixed as a matter of international and UK law under the article 50 process. That position respects the vote of the people in the referendum on 23 June 2016 to leave the EU, and there will not be a second referendum. As the Prime Minister set out in her Mansion House speech, our decision to leave the EU does not mark an ending; it marks a new beginning for our relationship with our European allies. We want the closest possible partnership. It is pragmatic common sense that we should work together to deliver the best outcome for both sides, and that is what we are doing.

I want to take a little time to talk about some of the solutions that have been proposed in relation to off-the-shelf models. As we have emphasised, we do not want an off-the-shelf solution or an existing model; we want the greatest possible tariff-free and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours, as well as to negotiate our own free trade agreements around the world, particularly in relation to our comparative advantage in services.

We want to ensure that UK companies have the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in European markets, and we want to let European businesses do the same in the UK. But we have always said that we are not looking for a Norway-style deal or a Canada-style deal. There is no point starting from scratch as we build our new relationship, because, unlike a country such as Canada, we start from the position of already having the same rules and regulations as the EU. Seeking a Norway-style agreement based on participation in the EEA agreement would not pass the first test that the Prime Minister set out for our future economic partnership with the EU. It would deliver control of neither our borders, nor our laws.

On borders, remaining in the EEA agreement would mean that we had to continue to accept all four freedoms of the single market, including freedom of movement. On laws, continued participation in the EEA agreement would mean the UK having to adopt at home, automatically and in their entirety, new EU rules, over which in future we will have little influence and no vote. This would not deliver the British people’s desire to have more direct control over the decisions that affect their daily lives.

Membership of EFTA, in and of itself, does not deliver any market access to the EU; it is a trading bloc between four European countries, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Three of those countries participate in the EU’s single market through the EEA agreement, while Switzerland participates in some areas through a series of bilateral agreements with the EU. Therefore, joining EFTA does not say anything about our future economic partnership with the EU. Although we want to maintain our deep and historical relationships with the EFTA states, the UK is in many ways different from those countries. Our population is about 65 million, whereas the EFTA states together comprise about 14 million people. In 2015, the EFTA bloc’s collective GDP amounted to £710 billion, which compares with the UK’s £1.9 trillion. So the UK’s participation in EFTA would fundamentally change the nature of that group and would not be an appropriate model for our future relationship with the EU or with those countries.

[Anna Soubry]

I was making the case for the single market and the EEA, and I am sure the Minister would agree that that is not an extreme position to hold.

[Mr Baker]

I listened carefully to the words my right hon. Friend used and I am sure the record will show that she referred to EFTA, but I am glad she has clarified that, in saying she supports EFTA, she means EFTA as an EEA member. But I stand by the remarks I just made. I hope she will not mind my saying to her gently that from the perspective of many who want to leave the EU, saying that we want to solve the problems of leaving the EU by staying in the EU’s internal market, with all that that entails for non-member states, and staying within the EU’s customs union, so that we have to accept the EU’s common commercial policy, appears to suggest that we must solve the problems of the EU by, de facto, staying within it. That is how it comes across to many people who wish sincerely to leave the EU. I did listen carefully to her—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) mentions transition, and of course we have set out the case for the implementation period.

I must press on, because I want particularly to pick up a point relating to borders and migration.

[Heidi Alexander]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Baker]

I want to make this point, but if I have time, I will give way to the hon. Lady. Remaining in the EEA agreement would mean having to continue to accept all four freedoms of the single market, including freedom of movement. Although it is true that Liechtenstein has unique arrangements on the movement of people, the UK is in many respects different from Liechtenstein, a country whose population is less than almost every UK constituency. We can safely anticipate that this exemption afforded to a micro-state would not be afforded to the UK.

I very much regret that, with only two minutes to go, I will have dramatically to shorten my speech. On the customs union, Turkey’s customs union with the UK does not cover certain sectors that would be vital to the UK economy and it does not guarantee frictionless trade across the whole economy, because of course a customs union alone does not solve some of the—[Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers are saying that this is not what they are looking for. They are looking to be in the customs union and remain harmonised with the regulations of the EU—that is the implication of their position. The implication of their position is that they do not wish to leave the EU. They want the EU to control our tariffs. They would be happy for it to control our laws. They would be happy to accept free movement. This is not what people voted for.

We must not lose sight of our ultimate aim to build a new comprehensive partnership that sees us stay the closest of friends and allies. As the Prime Minister has set out, our vision is of a UK that is a champion of free trade, based on a high standard, thriving as a global Britain which forges a bold and ambitious comprehensive economic partnership with our neighbours in the EU and reaches out beyond to foster trade agreements with nations across the globe. As we approach this March Economic Council, both sides in these negotiations have agreed that we want a common fight against terrorism and crime; we want participation and co-operation on research, innovation, culture and education; we want to avoid the absurdities of the interruption of flights; and we want a trade agreement covering all sectors, with zero tariffs on goods and addressing services. We shall succeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered European Affairs.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a joy to follow my Treasury Committee colleague, the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan). That should imply not an endorsement of his views, but rather an appreciation of his passion and erudition. I rise to welcome the Finance Bill—if it goes through unmolested, and even if it does not—and to concentrate my remarks, brief as they may be, on a couple of areas.

As an aficionado of my speeches and interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that I have developed something of an obsession about the future of the British economy being based on a combination of science and private capital. We are fortunate in this country in being a science superpower. In the south-east of England we have five of the world’s top 20 science universities: in King’s, UCL, Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial, we have possibly the largest agglomeration of scientific research on the planet, not just in life sciences, but in physical sciences, synthetic biology and all sorts of new exciting and interesting areas.

We are incredibly good at science. Our history of scientific endeavour points to that. There is one Cambridge college that has more Nobel prizes for science than the whole of Japan, for example. So we are good at science; what we are not so good at is turning those scientific discoveries into companies. We used to be good at that of course, back in the 19th century; much of the wealth of this country was built on the discovery and innovation of the Victorian era, put together with what was then much more adventurous private capital to create some of the monoliths—the huge companies we built over the following century and have sadly too often since sold to the rest of the world.

During that period, and particularly after the war, we were, however, lax in planting the acorns that would be required to produce the forest of oaks that we could chop down and sell to the highest bidder in the future, so our stock of these large companies has diminished. In fact, this is a European problem. Of the top 500 companies in the world, only two have been created in the past 40 years. Fortunately, those two are both British—Vodafone and Virgin—but that is not enough. If we are to continue our proud history of industrial innovation and of creating these large multinationals, we need to start planting those acorns. The operation of private capital and its dynamism in finding the ideas, the discoveries, the molecules, the therapies and the inventions are absolutely critical.

I have raised this issue again and again with the Chancellor in questions and during debates. I have asked about the complexities that are put in the way of individuals who wish to invest in innovations. The primary vehicles for investment that the Government allow private individuals to use are the enterprise investment scheme and the small enterprise investment scheme. They are welcome schemes that provide incentives for investors and some tax relief on disposal, but they are complex. Over the past eight to 10 years that the EIS has been in place—the SEIS has been in place for slightly less time—a body of case law has built up around their operation, as always happens with these things. Investors have tried to be innovative with the schemes, and investments have often been disallowed on technical bases. As a result, people are to a certain extent becoming shy of using them. Looking at the SEIS in particular, we see that the number of companies availing themselves of the scheme has levelled off. It has been broadly the same for the past three or four years.

I therefore welcome the measures in the Bill to introduce flexibility into the EIS and SEIS. If the Government really want to see a cascade of private capital into small, innovative businesses and into scientific endeavour, they need to make those schemes as flexible and easy to operate as possible. At the moment, if I want to invest a relatively small amount of money—£10,000 or £15,000—in a company, I need an accountant and a lawyer, and I need to get pre-approval from the Inland Revenue to ensure that I get my tax relief. I have to do all that in order to invest a relatively modest amount, in investment terms. So is it any wonder that the level of investment in these schemes is not enormous?

In this country at the moment, the Government are making 60% of the investments below £2 million through various schemes and funds and through the British Business Bank. That is all very welcome, but for a capitalist country, this is not right. The majority of investment should be from private capital, and it should be individuals who are making those investments. Accessing retail capital and putting it next to science to allow the two to create a powerful cocktail of wealth creation is key to the future of the British economy. I hope that, if we have another Finance Bill this year, the Government will seek to liberalise the investment regime for private investors in private businesses, particularly those that are innovative or science based.

The same applies to venture capital trusts. These were an enormously beneficial invention when they came in about a decade ago. They attracted huge amounts of capital. There was a time when people saw them as the last 100% tax shelter, but they, too, have fallen out of fashion. Their complexity and the poor returns that they produced compared with the tax relief available for them have meant that the number of VCTs has shrunk and the capital under management by VCTs has been broadly static over the past few years. These two things together—private capital investment through the EIS and SEIS and private capital coming in through VCTs—must be the twin planks underpinning the future of the British economy. We know that we cannot rely on foreign investment and that we cannot rely entirely on institutional investment. They are far too cautious for some of the innovations that need investment. So re-energising private capital and providing easy, flexible ways for individuals to invest quite small amounts of money into innovative companies will be absolutely key. I welcome some of the flexibilities in the Bill and I hope that the Government will be more ambitious over the next 12 months.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend’s speech is an absolute treat because it is a much better version of the speech that I made on science and markets in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill Committee on which we served together. Does he agree that one of the key spirits that we need to recapture from the 19th century, when we took science and innovation and turned them into big companies, is getting people who know how to do things, such as engineers, to become entrepreneurs—perhaps in the spirit of I. K. Brunel? In that way, those who know how to produce will also know how to invest and how to serve people in a commercial way.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This is a chicken and egg situation. If people with ideas and inventions who are thinking about starting their own business know that capital is more easily available, they will be much more likely to go out and take the risk of starting that business. It is often the paucity of capital and the difficulty of raising it that lead such people not to proceed.

Let me give the House a small anecdote. When I was deputy mayor for business and enterprise in London, I went to a life sciences fair where companies were making presentations about their inventions. I came across a group of young biochemists from Cambridge who had invented what they called an espresso machine for DNA. When people are doing primary research, they often need to manufacture DNA on which to carry out their research. The standard ways of doing that are either to send off to have it made elsewhere, which is time consuming and expensive, or to make it themselves by trial and error. This group had developed software and invented a machine to produce the necessary kind of DNA. I thought that was incredible. It was an amazing British invention. The group had won a prize at Cambridge and received a small grant. I thought that they would need £5 million or £10 million, and if I had had it, I would have given it to them. When I went up to them afterwards, I discovered that they were trying to raise only £250,000, but they were having difficulty in doing so, even though, as far as I could see, their incredible invention was going to revolutionise research. Time and again while I was doing that job, I met young, ambitious and exciting scientists who had a molecule, a therapy or an invention but who were unable to access the necessary capital and would therefore go off and become chartered accountants, like me, instead. We lose a huge amount of talent that way. My hon. Friend has made a strong point.

I lament the passing of the employee shareholder scheme, which was introduced by the previous Chancellor, under which employees could enter into an agreement to vary their employment rights in exchange for which shares in the company. Sadly, the scheme was abused. It was often not taken up for the purpose for which it had been intended. It was abused by some as a form of disguised remuneration. The Government are quite right to close the scheme down, but that nevertheless leaves us with a problem. Not enough people in the United Kingdom participate in the balance sheet of this country. The Prime Minister has often talked about having an economy that works for everyone, but such an economy surely has to be one that is largely owned by everyone. I do not mean owned in a statist or communist way; I am talking about an economy in which everyone has some kind of financial interest from a balance sheet point of view.

We spend a lot of time in this House obsessing about people’s profit/loss account. Is my income bigger than the next chap’s income? Am I earning more than the lady round the corner? We obsess about income inequality, but we rarely obsess about wealth inequality; yet intergenerational wealth is built on the balance sheet of the family. It is built on the investments, albeit small ones, made by one generation. That wealth is expanded by the next generation and built on by the third one. That was certainly the story in my family. We came from fairly lowly beginnings, yet here I am now. This has been built on the fact that my grandparents made investments and my parents started a business. Hopefully, in turn, they will pass some of that wealth to me, although not, I hope, for a long time yet. We have a collective family balance sheet. We are able to buy stocks and shares, for example, but that is denied to lots of people in this country.

The one place in which individuals should have a share of wealth is in the companies that they work for. If we are really to have an economy that works for everyone, we need an economy that is largely owned by everyone. The Government have schemes available, particularly for employee share ownership, in which companies can set up pools of capital for their shareholders. I have been looking into this for my own business, but the scheme is incredibly complicated. In dealing with relatively small amounts of money, I need lawyers and accountants and pre-approval from the Revenue. There is an incredible frictional cost involved in getting such a scheme under way.

My plea to the Government, having got rid of the employee shareholder scheme, is to think about how to facilitate that idea—how to make sure that it is in the interests of employers and business owners to involve their employees in the business in a capital sense. That will enable employees to create for themselves a balance sheet on which to begin the intergenerational wealth creation that the country needs. If we can do that, we will start to build an economy that works for everyone.

I want to talk about two other small things. I welcome the change to the allowance for investment in grassroots sport. Members may not have noticed, but the Finance Bill will make investment in grassroots sport deductible for businesses, and that will be extremely welcome to football, cricket, hockey and many other clubs. I am proud to say that my business has sponsored local children’s football clubs at schools and so on. The more we involve business with school and grassroots sport for young people, the more both parties will see each other on the same level and the more interested they will be in each other. That is a good thing.

Finally, I want to say something about the overall tenor of the Bill. It has become clear to me over the last three or four Finance Bills that we in this House will increasingly struggle to tax a changing economy. We have seen in the discussions about national insurance and business rates that because of the changing nature of business, the standard Whitehall way of taxing the world will not last that much longer. We are moving into a world of cloud computing, the gig economy, non-domiciled businesses and cashless businesses that operate from third or fourth countries. All those things will be difficult for us to tax, and one of our challenges over the next Parliament will be to think more radically about how to deal with the changing nature of our economy and how to tax it to pay for the things we need.

My personal view is that given the changing nature of our economy and the removal of a lot of cash from the business cycle, it may be time to start to look at things other than direct taxation. Corporation tax is difficult, complex and hard to collect. There is a big tax gap compared with VAT, which is relatively easy to collect and where compliance is high. If I were Chancellor, I would probably prefer to have VAT.

With international businesses transacting in the UK and extracting money, we may need to start to look at the notion of a universal sales tax. Such a sales or turnover tax would be more easily collected and might well allow us to have a lower tax rate, spread across a wider tax base, because we would catch international businesses that transacted from, say, Luxembourg or Ireland. Fundamentally, the rule should be that if the sale takes place in the UK, the tax on the sale is collected here, no matter where the company is domiciled.

We will have to think quite carefully over the next five years, after we get through the general election in the next few weeks, about the changing nature of the economy and the radical measures we need to take to keep up with it. Beyond that, we are making good progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Of course we want there to be a viable branch banking network across the country, but we must recognise that the nature of banking is changing. More and more of us are using online digital banking, and that is bound to be reflected in the configuration of the branch networks that the banks operate.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

As the entrepreneurial heart of England, Buckinghamshire provides an excellent bridge to the east midlands and beyond. Will my right hon. Friend look into how investment in Buckinghamshire can help to stimulate growth throughout the country, not just in London and the south-east?

[Mr Hammond]

I am sure you are delighted, Mr Speaker, that my hon. Friend has lighted on the key role of Buckinghamshire as a bridge between the north, the south, the east, the west and every other part of the country. I should be happy to receive, and I confidently predict that I will receive, my hon. Friend’s detailed submission on the case for greater infrastructure investment in Buckinghamshire.

Value Added Taxation

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 General Committees

[Jane Ellison]

I am not sure I can add a great deal more. No, I do not have my head in the sand. I am being practical, as many of us now have to be. As Ministers, many of us are engaged on a day-to-day basis with the practicalities of how we move forward.

To reiterate, when we are outside the EU, it is probably going to remain our most important trading relationship. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to be good EU members while we are in, and that we continue to be engaged, practical and positive once we are out.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

To level-set people’s expectations, when in the process of the next few years do we expect to regain sufficient control over VAT so as to be able to end, for example, the hated tampon tax?

[Jane Ellison]

On Report of the Finance Bill last year, we included provisions to legislate by this spring or by the time that we had left the EU, whichever was legally possible and feasible. We have continued to engage with the Commission at official and ministerial level quite extensively since that debate. We are not likely to be in a position to move this spring, for the reason I spelled out in my comments, but we have given a commitment. We have the same view on this matter in all parts of the House; we want to deal with this long-standing anomaly. I am sure Members of all parties would also support the fact that we are equally committed to abiding by the rules for as long as we are in the club. We will not, and cannot, act outside the rules—that would be counterproductive to a negotiation in good faith—but we have included legislative provisions to move on this matter as soon as we are legally able. The clock is ticking on it. We are not moving towards a distant and unsighted point—we have a sense of the backstop date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

We will not be in a single EU VAT area because we will not be an EU member state. However, the paragraph that I have just read out says that it should be

“possible to extend the EU system of administrative cooperation to non-EU countries, particularly to ensure effective taxation of e-commerce”,

so we will be involved as a third country. Given the way the EU does trade deals, it will look to ensure that there is as much equivalence and commonality as possible in a number of areas. We therefore need to make the case for the industries, sectors and products that we think are important. Ensuring that our voice is as loud as possible in these negotiations will benefit us as a country.

The likelihood is that the EU will look to include some commonality or equivalence in relation to VAT systems in a post-Brexit deal with the UK. The EU is a much bigger entity than the UK, so we need to think carefully about how the EU is currently structured and what it is currently doing to ensure that it is as favourable as possible for us when we become a third country and try to make a trade deal with it.

[Mr Baker]

I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Lady has said, which has been interesting. What consideration has she given to the need to co-operate on issues such as VAT in a world of global e-commerce that necessarily extends to many nations and millions of people outside the European Union?

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is a really interesting point, which highlights how much sovereignty has to be given away when agreeing a trade deal with another country. As the EU is a major player and a major consumer of our services exports—that is particularly relevant for e-commerce—we probably need to concentrate on agreeing a trade deal with it before thinking about deals with other countries. It is likely that the EU will want to talk about VAT when it makes trade deals with other third countries, too, so having a common relationship with the EU will probably be positive for us when we make deals with third countries.

I very much appreciate the chance to talk in this debate and make our priorities clear. If there is more flexibility over VAT and its devolution once the UK leaves the EU, I will call for the entirety of VAT to be devolved to Scotland. We have mentioned that before. Under the Scotland Act 2016, the top share of VAT is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Although that is nice, it does not give us flexibility over policy levers, so I would call for further devolution in that situation.

Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am very glad to be called to speak in this debate. I support the motion, and congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), with whom I serve on the Treasury Committee, not just on securing this debate, but on the excellent work he has done in having the initiative to bring forward the all-party group on fair business banking. I am glad to be a vice-chair of it, and am grateful to him for the invitation to take that role. I shall make three points: the first is about incentives; the second is about the cost and accessibility of courts; and the third is about complexity.

I have spoken previously in the House about the incentives for bad behaviour, particularly in relation to accounting under the international financial reporting standards, and liability. It is appropriate that the House is so well packed with Scottish National party Members, because I know at least one of them will be glad to hear that I recently attended an event at the Adam Smith Institute, where I helped launch the book “Legislating Instability: Adam Smith, free banking and the financial crisis of 1772”, by Tyler Beck Goodspeed, a brilliant American economist working in the UK. That event may seem irrelevant, but it goes to the heart of what is wrong today. The book shows that the Scottish banking system, characterised as it was by unlimited strict liability among partners, had very good, strong incentives for the owners and staff of banks to behave well. I am grateful to the hon. Members who are nodding in agreement.

Of course, we have come a long way since then, and we are not about to go back to free banking, much as I would wish us to. I shall quote an actuary, whom I do not wish to name, who talked about his work:

“I have examined around 100 individual cases, all of which had the same negative qualities. It is a case of bank salesmen deliberately withholding key information about the risks embedded in the ‘hedging’ products they sell. The term ‘hedging’ is therefore itself misleading.

Overall, the process is disgusting. Banks sold derivative products on top of loans to their clients which those banks knew would render them less creditworthy at the point of sale, and therefore render the business more likely to fail. How this can be described as ‘hedging’ by any financial organisation with a scrap of integrity is beyond me.”

I agree. The actuary went on to say:

“This misleading use of language, unfortunately, is maintained by some of the ‘experts’, some of whom charge large fees for reports to take into the courts. If these reports miss out on key risks, the cases become far weaker, possibly to the point that the case fails. At the best, the bargaining power of victims is much reduced.”

I want to pick up on that experience, because my second point is about the cost and accessibility of the courts system. This points to why our debate is so important. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Lothian has, like me, heard evidence in constituency casework and from the authorities showing that the system that was set up was not adequate to the task in hand. Indeed, I am sure many Members will have constituents whose businesses have been in grave difficulty, and whose lives have been affected, who found that the system failed them.

However well intentioned the authorities were in setting up the system, it has not worked well. We need to find some middle ground between the courts, which are too expensive, complex and require expert evidence—often either unavailable or too expensive to purchase at quality—and the failed semi-formal system. The court system, its inadequacies and the necessity of avoiding it is an old problem—Matthew 5:25 refers to it—and the Government have quite some task ahead of them if they are to deal with this matter.

As for complexity, even Treasury Committee members, who have been elected by the House to deal with such issues, have found derivatives fabulously complex and difficult to follow. If that is true of those of us who are charged with developing the expertise, it will no doubt be true of the small business people who buy the products. To ensure that similar problems do not reoccur, the Government may want to consider whether small businesses —limits on size is something else to consider—ought to be treated as consumers for regulatory purposes.

I am glad that we are interested in a tribunal system funded by the banks, and that we are open-minded. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) is not in his place, I am grateful that he will be working with the APPG to take things forward. Finally, I again congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian. I look forward to making progress, and to hearing what my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

I made a speech in this place on 1 February 2016 on the FCA compensation scheme for interest rate hedging products. I argued then that that scheme was ill thought out and provided no effective redress for businesses that had been made insolvent. To be honest, I was almost tempted to re-read my previous speech because here we are again, although I would have included the new numbers. Whereas in the case of the IRHP scheme 10% of its complainants were insolvent, in the case of RBS Global Restructuring Group that figure is upwards of 75%, with some estimates as high as 94%, yet fundamentally nothing has changed because RBS has already confirmed that it will not deal with the business owners who have lost their livelihood. The too little, too late apology from the chief executive of RBS, Ross McEwan, is not good enough.

Thanks to the excellent investigative journalism of BuzzFeed and the BBC, the so-called dash-for-cash articles make fascinating, yet harrowing reading. They clearly demonstrate a system that is well ordered and well structured in which the winner takes all. The so called victory emails that were sent to teams in GRG when West Register acquired an asset are a disgrace. That is quite telling because where there is a victor, there is always a loser.

I am grateful to Nick Stoop of Warwick Risk Management who applies the story of the “Komodo dragon” condition. The Komodo dragon lies in wait at a watering hole where it nips the foot of its prey. The prey escapes, apparently not seriously harmed, but the bite is toxic and the dragon knows that its target will eventually weaken and die. So it is with RBS swaps and GRG. The swaps salesman lands the toxic bite. GRG and West Register then get to tear the client to pieces.

I concur with Members who spoke about what that means for those people. We can never forget that people are at the heart of what we are trying to do here. Remember what they may have lost—their family home, their business, their livelihood, their future livelihood if they planned for their children to go into the business, their dignity, their pride and often their very self-definition. We know that wider society loses—the wider community, other local businesses that depend on the failed business, its supply chain, creditors, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) pointed out the potential emotional impact on individuals who, for years, have to dig deep for resilience and strength, but very often end up with mental health issues or develop physical illnesses. Let us never forget that people have committed suicide as a result of the actions of some of our banks.

When did we sign up to this? When did we sign up to a taxpayer-owned bank pillaging the assets of our SMEs—the so-called life blood of our economy—or creating a system where victory emails are sent when another department of the same bank asset-strips? We have to ask whether abuses such as those at RBS could have taken place if we had a system where a business owner could simply be heard. I concur again with my hon. Friend that it is a contract between unequals when somebody who has been declared sequestrated or insolvent cannot take on a bank.

[Mr Baker]

In this House we often hear strident language. The hon. Lady used the word “pillage”. I entirely agree that it is wholly appropriate to describe some of that behaviour as a pillage of those companies, and I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that compliment.

Finally, I want to address the topic of culture. We need to recall that it is the underlying culture of institutions that has enabled this to happen. We know that we have come from a driven, bottom-line culture, but we must make our banking system—our whole financial system—work for us and for our society. I fear that we have lost sight of that over recent years. I agree that we need a tribunal, but we also need an effective process so that precedent can be set and learned from, and so that behaviour is changed and abuses do not happen in the first place. We have seen that happen with other tribunal systems.

I thank the APPG for its support in driving this campaign and Andrew Bailey of the FCA who endorsed the idea. It is time to get started.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

I will not give way, but perhaps we might speak afterwards. I have an awful lot of things I have to address.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) asked about incentives to discourage misconduct. The Government and regulators have acted to embed personal responsibility in banking through the senior managers and certification regime. He also stated that small businesses should be treated as consumers.

[Mr Baker]

I am not sure that I did state that. I asked the Government to consider whether it would be appropriate, if I recall correctly.

[Simon Kirby]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, and I apologise to the right hon. Member for Delyn for being inconsistent.

Unincorporated sole traders and small partnerships fall under the regulatory rules of the consumer credit regime. The FCA is asking how all SMEs are treated as customers of financial services, as is right and proper.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) mentioned the IRHP scheme. The redress scheme was not designed to replicate the courts system, which can be lengthy and expensive, as Members have acknowledged. Independent reviewers were put in place to oversee each case.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) asked about the timeliness of the ombudsman’s decisions. I agree that the decisions should be quick. I am assured that its decisions are faster than the courts and free for complainants. However, inevitably, complex cases will take time to resolve. He also asked about the disclosure of information. Where the ombudsman considers it appropriate to accept confidential information, an edited version, summary or description will be disclosed to the other party. I agree that it is right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for keeping this issue on the agenda.

The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) asked an important question about whistleblowers. I understand that the FCA has invited the hon. Member for East Lothian to discuss whistleblowing and I am sure he would be welcome at that meeting. To be clear, the Government recognise the information and huge value that whistleblowers provide.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Well, this was worth waiting for: we have a firm commitment by the Opposition to run the triple lock through the lifetime of the next Parliament. I wonder whether the hon. Lady knows how much money she has just spent, without knowing the fiscal circumstances the country will face. What we have said, and the only responsible thing to say, is that all the commitments we have made for the duration of this Parliament we will review at the spending review before the end of the Parliament, and we will decide then which ones we can afford to renew and which ones are appropriate to renew. I think this tells us everything we need to know about the Opposition: three and a half years out, they are willing to spray around commitments without any idea of what it is going to cost them.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

T9. Casework in Wycombe continues to illustrate calculation and communication errors around tax credit payments. What steps will the Government take to reduce those errors?