Finance Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Of course there are a number of HMRC-led IT programmes; Making Tax Digital is but one of them. A new system for customs, the customs declaration service system, will replace CHIEF—the customs handling of import and export freight system—and that has very high priority. We are on target for full roll-out in January 2019; we will begin the CDS pilot in August next year. I am satisfied that the balance is correct at the moment.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Has the Minister spoken to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, who are embarking on a £13 billion IT contract for universal credit, on the lessons to be learned and the impact on people who are trying to use a system that is evidently not fit for purpose?

[Mel Stride]

As that programme relates to DWP, the question would be best directed in that direction, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, to the extent that the Treasury and HMRC impinge on the programme, it is for us a very high priority.

I turn to new clause 2, which, although not debated, was tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I would like to deal with it, because I know that from her perspective it was a very important new clause. I understand why she suggests extending the rules on the taxation of capital gains from commercial property disposals by UK taxpayers with a foreign domicile, but I fear that the new clause and the discussion it has prompted have fallen foul of the complexity inherent in this area. I would like to clarify some of the issues.

First, contrary to the new clause, it is residence and not domicile that determines whether the disposal of an asset in the UK is within the charge of capital gains tax. UK residents, including non-doms, will always be liable for CGT on the profits from selling UK land, whether that land is residential or commercial. Also, it does not appear that the change that the hon. Lady proposes would apply to foreign companies owning UK commercial property, as domicile does not apply to companies.

These elements of confusion mean that it is far from clear that the review proposed would work. I remind the hon. Lady that this Government in 2015 started taxing non-residents on their gains from UK real estate—something that previous Governments had ducked. Those changes give a sense of the amount of revenue that an extension of them to the commercial property market would raise. The Office for Budget Responsibility certified that the 2015 changes will raise £40 million this financial year and £70 million in the next. That gives a more realistic sense of the order of magnitude of the amount that this change could raise than the figures suggested in previous debates.

The hon. Lady has also suggested that taxpayers are designating residential property as commercial property to avoid paying the residential charge. Let me be clear: if residential property is being designated as commercial property, that is a matter of tax avoidance or evasion, not of the scope of CGT. HMRC has not seen any evidence of this practice.

The hon. Lady has provoked a good debate on this issue. Although I urge the House to reject new clause 2, which confuses too many of the issues at stake, I recognise that a number of points in this area are worth consideration, and we will certainly continue to look closely at the issue of non-residence and CGT on commercial property.

New clause 3 seeks to commit the Government to carrying out and publishing a review of the tax treatment of income provided through third parties, in particular in relation to sports image rights. Image rights payments have long been taxable. There have been cases where employers have tried to inflate payments for image rights and to reduce salaries accordingly, to deliver a tax saving to both employers and employees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), whom I see in his place, for the insights, advice and support that he has given me on this issue.

The courts have ruled that genuine image rights payments to an employee are not taxable as earnings. It is therefore for HMRC to ensure that image rights payments are genuine and taxed in the right way. At spring Budget 2017, this Government committed HMRC to publishing clear guidelines for employers who make image rights payments for the use of an employee’s image, and HMRC has done that. HMRC undertakes extensive compliance activity to ensure that employers play by the rules and image rights payments are taxed in the right way. The new clause is not necessary, so I urge the House to reject it.

New clause 5 asks for a review of the conditions of registration for third country goods fulfilment businesses. The review would also need to consider the case for imposing either joint and several liability or direct liability on third country goods fulfilment businesses for the unpaid VAT of their overseas clients.

The Government are proud of their record in tackling online VAT fraud, a complex international problem. The UK has led the way with a package of measures that Government first announced at Budget 2016. It includes the fulfilment house due diligence scheme provided for in the Bill and powers for HMRC to hold online marketplaces jointly and severally liable for the unpaid VAT of overseas traders.

The Government have already undertaken extensive consultation on the scheme in the past 18 months. I assure hon. Members that we will continue to monitor the impact of the legislation. I therefore urge the House to reject new clause 5.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As it is Halloween, I rise to give the Minister a fright, because if he thinks he is going to get away without properly examining new clause 2 and the benefits that it could bring to our country and British business, he is in for a trick-or-treat moment. There are certainly ghosts that haunt our politics—[Interruption.] I am disappointed to see you being so slow, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] That is certainly very spooky.

As I said, there are ghosts that haunt our politics, so I start my speech by putting on record my thanks to the former Member for Tatton, George Osborne, for inspiring new clause 2. Indeed, I noted that the Minister referred to his work, too. These were the words of the former Member for Tatton in 2015 when the then Government brought in the first rules around tax and non-doms:

“It is not fair that non-doms with residential property here in the UK can put it in an offshore company and avoid inheritance tax.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 325.]

By using those words, the former Chancellor raised two important issues: first, the fairness of our taxation system and, secondly, how it extends to foreign ownership. He was absolutely right to introduce those measures, but what we are talking about today is the necessary and inevitable conclusion of that debate: what we do when people raise issues about fairness and foreign ownership. The new clause answers that call because, frankly, it is not fair that British businesses have to pay corporation tax on their capital gains when they sell commercial properties, but overseas businesses trading in the UK in UK-based property do not.

It is not fair that we are one of the few countries in the world to treat its businesses in this way and let foreign companies off the hook—all those real estate investors who some might feel donate so much else to some in this country, but who do not pay their taxes. As the previous Chancellor argued, people can put property into an offshore company to avoid tax.

If the Minister’s main objection to the new clause is the way in which I have described the domicile of these people, he ought to think again. Certainly, he ought to do as I did today and google the term “tax efficient Jersey UK real estate”, because when he does and he sees the advice being offered to non-resident companies, I suspect he will find it galling. He will find companies including BNP Paribas Real Estate, Ogier, Bedell Cristin and Hawksford boasting about how UK real estate investment trusts based in Jersey but listed on the international stock exchange do not pay the same rates of stamp duty as those resident in the UK, and do not pay capital gains tax. Indeed, the International Stock Exchange itself states:

“we have pragmatic listing requirements for this product”.

That simply means that the businesses involved get to avoid the same charges that our British businesses have to pay. We as British taxpayers should be asking why any company is using such a model—why such companies are given these listings and are able to buy and sell UK property in this way—because it is very hard to see what the justification is, and why we make it so easy to exploit this loophole when there is tax on residential property sales, but not on commercial properties.

The former Chancellor boasted in 2015 that making non-UK-based people pay capital gains tax on their residential property sales would raise £1.5 billion over the course of this Parliament. The purpose of the new clause is to tell us just how much closing this loophole would raise, and just how much these companies are making through such behaviour.

Sadly, because the Minister was so determined to get through his speech so quickly, I did not hear the number he came up with. I certainly find it striking that HMRC does not know how much money is missing, but in the spirit of this cross-party measure, let me offer the House some of my own figures.

The British Property Federation says that there is about £871 billion of commercial real estate in the UK, which represents 10% of our nation’s entire wealth. That is a hugely important market in its own right, but how we buy and sell commercial property also affects our residential property market, as it has an impact on the price of land. For those of us who represent constituencies where house prices are exorbitant, to say the least, tackling the overheating in our property market would be a very noble thing to do. I believe that we would get support for that from both sides of the House.

We know that about 20% of commercial real estate is sold every year, and that it was worth an eye-watering £115 billion in 2015—that is the figure the taxman knows about. We also know that about 30% of commercial property in the UK is held in these offshore trusts and companies. For those who are fans of “Countdown” and want to see how I have done my homework, I have done my sums assuming an 8% increase as the long-term trend rate for commercial property prices. Working on that assumption, if about 20% of that property is sold and the current 19% rate of corporation tax is used, there would be about £11 billion of taxable gains every year. It is therefore not unrealistic to expect that around £6 billion of taxation could be collected.

[Jim McMahon]

We are told time after time that we should live within our means and that our public services will pay the price if we do not, so is it not the case that the first thing we should do is to maximise our means?

[Stella Creasy]

Spoken like a true former local authority leader who has had to deal with the consequences of Government cuts!

This is about the question of fairness that was put forward by the former Chancellor. None of this is illegal. We might consider it immoral, but it is certainly not illegal, and none of it is captured by UK anti-avoidance rules. The Minister is not being open about companies that might include UK residents who have their properties held offshore. This is unfair to UK businesses. I understand that at present there is concern about economic policies and a dangerous air of radicalism in British politics. Let me reassure Conservative Members who might feel frightened about supporting this measure to close the loophole, and fear that it could be a radical socialist policy—I happen to think that it could be—that this is simply a question of fairness.

This is also something that most other countries do. Canada, Australia and the rest of Europe do it, so the new clause would bring us into line with them. Indeed, the OECD model double tax treaty explicitly preserves the right of countries to tax non-residents on their capital gains from the disposal of local real estate.

The Bill itself brings in anti-avoidance measures relating to inheritance tax and to holding property through non-UK companies. That is why it is difficult, having listened to the Minister in Committee, to understand why this particular proposal has been put into the “too complex” category. In Committee, he voted against a similar provision because he argued that it was just too complex, while admitting that the rules introduced in 2015 were designed to catch individuals holding a title over a dwelling in a trust or a closely held company. He argued against the proposal because he said that it would require what he considered to be a whole tax code. My problem with the Minister’s saying that this is too complicated is that it places him and the British Government in a special category. If most other countries can get their heads around how to tax non-resident companies’ capital gains on commercial properties, I simply fail to understand why it is beyond the wit and wisdom of the UK Treasury to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) has mentioned the human impact of this situation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies tells us that the Chancellor has black hole in his budget of £20 billion and rising, and that is before we even consider the cost and impact of Brexit. If my estimate is right that closing the loophole would raise £6 billion every year, that money would pay for the entire public health budget helping people with diabetes and heart disease. It would cover restoring nursing bursaries and keeping open our police stations that are currently destined for closure. It would entirely cover the cost of a public sector pay rise in line with inflation—that is according to the IFS’s figures, not mine. When reports tell us that the Government are so short of money at a time when a Budget is coming up, “Is it fair?” and “Can we afford not to do this?” are two important questions for British taxpayers.

I disagree with the Minister, but if he is worried about the drafting of new clause 2, I would support his tabling an amendment to address the use of the term “domicile”. Even if Government Members are worried about the detail, new clause 2 simply looks at the numbers, so it would give us some information. HMRC does not know the amount that we are missing out on as a result of this loophole. The Minister mumbled something about OBR figures, but I have done my own calculations and we are not talking about small change. This money could have a tangible impact on our public finances now.

I am sad that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is not in the Chamber because he chided my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) in September about a lack of action on loopholes. This proposal has cross-party support, so I would love Members from both sides of the House to recognise that when we see something that is unfair and costs us billions of pounds, we can act quickly. I am sure that the Minister will be given an opportunity to respond to the debate, so if other countries can do this, if British businesses are suffering unfairness, and if our public services desperately need the cash, will he think again? He says that he keeps the tax situation under review, so if he will pledge to publish a specific review of capital gains tax on commercial properties, I will happily not press the new clause to a Division.

British taxpayers have a right to know how much money is leaking out of our system as a result of the loophole. I would wager that many MPs will be lobbied by their constituents about closures in their community, public service cuts and struggling businesses, and by people who cannot afford their own home due to the overheated property market. Those people will want answers, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say. When we were young, we were all told that money does not grow on trees, but in this instance the roots are overseas, and it is up to the Minister to pull them up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I have already conceded that point. We are looking at this, which rather trumps any questions about why we are not. We are considering it very seriously, and I said earlier that we are looking closely at the issue of non-residents and capital gains tax on commercial property.

[Jim McMahon]

I am pleased to hear that the Government are looking at this important issue, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on her significant work. When will the Government publish their findings?

[Mel Stride]

It is not a question of publishing information on every area we look into, but I have made it clear that we are seriously considering the issues that have been raised. I have also made it clear that new clause 2 would not do what the hon. Member for Walthamstow describes.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about this issue.

As I have said, through our work with the sector and the Valuation Office Agency, we believe that we have found a clear way to capture the concept of new fibre. We have set this out in our draft regulations and the consultation document that we published last week. However, this is a technical and fast-moving sector, so we will keep the operation of the relief under review to ensure that it is working as planned and that the regulations keep pace with the continuing technical advances and changes in the industry. Accordingly, it will remain important that we have the powers available to amend the operation of the relief scheme over time. The powers in the clauses will also allow the Secretary of State to determine the level of relief to be awarded. As I have said, the Government intend to allow telecoms operators 100% relief, but only for new fibre. That new fibre will of course form part of existing telecom networks with existing ratings assessments.

Through the operation of this scheme, we intend to ensure that the relief is awarded only in respect of new fibre and not existing fibre. To achieve this, the powers in the clauses will allow us to set, by a formula contained in regulations, the correct level of relief for each property, reflecting the amount of their network that qualifies for the relief. This will be based on a certificate of the amount of rateable value that it appears to the valuation officer is attributable to the new fibre. The consultation document we published last week explains how, when taken together, the formula in the Bill and the formula in the draft regulations will deliver the correct relief for a property.

As I have said, these provisions are mirrored in the first three clauses of the Bill. Sometimes the letters in the formula differ, but that is merely to conform to existing lettering in the sections into which the formula will be introduced. Hon. Members will have noticed that clause 1 includes a table referring to different subsections. In theory, there will be instances where a property could be eligible for the new fibre relief but also for another such as charitable relief, although we believe this to be extremely unlikely. However, for completeness, the table in clause 1 makes it clear which relief should apply. No such conflict can arise for unoccupied properties or properties on the central list, so the table appears only in clause 1. The rules we have adopted here are consistent with the existing hierarchy of reliefs in the business rates system. Charity relief will apply above all others, and then reliefs such as small business rate relief. The relief for new fibre will apply only where no other relief applies.

Clause 4 gives effect to the schedule to the Bill. As I have described, the Bill makes a number of amendments to different sections of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Most of the amendments in the schedule are to that Act, and are necessary merely to ensure that those provisions continue to make sense and operate as intended. We are also in the schedule making consequential changes to the Business Rate Supplements Act 2009. Ratepayers entitled to mandatory reliefs in the main business rates system are also entitled to the same relief against the business rate supplement currently applied to larger properties in London. The Bill ensures that that continues to apply for the new fibre relief through these consequential amendments.

Clause 4 also includes the normal power to make regulations for other consequential provisions. We intend to use these powers to make consequential changes to the regulations that govern the transitional relief scheme. This will ensure that the relief is also available for those ratepayers who are either receiving transitional relief or whose reductions from the revaluation are being capped to fund the transitional relief.

Clause 5 provides the normal authority from Parliament that is necessary when making provisions that create a charge on public funds.

Clause 6 provides that the Bill applies to England and Wales. Business rates policy is devolved, so it will be for the Welsh Government to consider whether to introduce a similar relief. The Welsh Assembly Government have asked for the powers in this Bill to apply to Wales, although it will of course be a matter for Welsh Ministers to exercise those powers in relation to Wales. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, business rates legislation is made in their own Parliaments, so again it will be a matter for them whether to proceed with this measure. However, under the Barnett formula, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will receive their share of the funding of the relief. As we have discussed, the relief for new fibre will apply from 1 April 2017, so clause 6 also provides that the amendments and powers in the Bill can take effect retrospectively for the financial year commencing 1 April 2017.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have just had a run-through of what the Bill contains, and by and large we welcome it. It is one of the remnants of the Local Government Finance Bill, which fell when the general election was called, and which contained things that industry and local government leaders wanted to see introduced. This could well be the first of several proposals, and I would welcome a conversation about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I share the vote of thanks to the range of people who have assisted the Bill. A great deal of work went on in the background to ensure the support of Members and the passage of the Bill. I would like to thank the Public Bill Office for the support it gave to the Opposition during the Committee stage, which was a great help.

The Opposition welcome this infrastructure, which aims to improve our connectivity. We know that improved connectivity is important for economic growth, more jobs and improved links between business hubs and individuals alike. One slight regret, which is a major regret for the people affected, is that nothing in the Bill addresses the divide between urban areas and our rural communities. With 95% of people connected, it is a bitter pill for the 5% who live in areas that are not connected. People in those areas do not want warm words about the amounts of money being given away, but a plan in place to say when high-speed will reach them. Self-employment is on the rise, so access to decent IT in rural communities is essential. It is not in the Bill, but I urge the Government to give more detail on what they are going to do to encourage that roll-out, either in terms of allocation or through the soft relationship they are developing with providers.

The Labour party is committed to focusing on improvements to connectivity and infrastructure in rural communities, many of which feel they have been taken for granted by the Government. They have suffered chronic underinvestment for far too long. We know there are different demands, different drivers and different pressures on our communities, but the decisions we make today should not be just about catching up with infrastructure developed five or 10 years ago; it ought to be about preparing the country for the next 10, 20 or 30 years ahead and for the next century. Many communities do not feel that they are a part of such consideration.

The Prime Minister previously called for co-operation across political parties. Over the summer, I reflected on 18 months of being an MP, after previously being a councillor and council leader for 13 years. To make a council and a place work, people need a common vision of what an area can be and they need to know what part they can play in taking it forward. I do not see that taking place nationally. It seems as though party politics is far more important than the people we all, collectively, represent. Getting one up on the Opposition or the Member sat across the Benches seems to be worth more than delivering investment on the ground for the very diverse communities we represent.

I should say that that is not my personal style at all. I am always more than happy to work across political parties if it means, ultimately, that we have better government for all the communities we represent. That is an offer. I do not intend to do the Government’s job for them—I am not a taxi for hire in that sense—but I am keen to ensure that the voice of industry, local government and our many diverse communities really feature in policy as it comes through.

There is one area that we need to address. This is not party political, although I do have a view about what the Local Government Finance Bill included and did not include in terms of some of the safety nets and safeguards required. Our local councils cannot continue with their current funding settlement. We know that demand for adult social care is outstripping the money that they have, we know that they are stripping away frontline services just to keep their heads above water, and we know that that is just not sustainable. People are being expected to pay more and more council tax for what they perceive to be fewer and fewer of the services on which they rely, and which they consider to be vital and the foundation of their communities. Surely, if we believe in a decent country in which people can get on and public service is the foundation stone, we must not stand by and watch those people fall over.

This is, in effect, a plea. We have seen the presentation of one element of the Local Government Finance Bill; let us now see the presentation of a scheduled series of Bills that will really address chronic underfunding and the short-term nature of local government finance.

Public Sector Pay Cap

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We need to ensure a continual balance in being fair to the people working in public services—giving them the training and opportunities they deserve, and paying them fairly—while at the same time making sure that they will be able to continue to work in those public services in the future. If we look at what happened in Greece when the deficit got out of control, we can see that there was a 36% reduction in spending on the health service. [Interruption.] Members on the Opposition Front Bench may groan, but they should look at the facts about what happens when unfunded spending commitments are made. Let us be clear: the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that Labour’s spending plans would lead to the highest levels of taxation we have ever seen in peacetime Britain. Theirs are not moderate but extreme proposals that would lead to people losing their jobs.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chief Secretary quite rightly outlined that there is more to the package offered to public sector workers, including pensions, but will she confirm that the average pension for a local government worker is less than £80 week? What message does it send when, on top of that, their wages are supressed and their workloads have increased twofold? Is not the truth that this Government know the cost of everything and the value of absolutely nothing?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We care about how well our public services are serving the public, and we want to have highly motivated people working in our public services who feel valued and properly remunerated. That is why such decisions are made by independent bodies.

Draft Representation of the People (England and Wales)(Amendment) Regulations 2016

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 General Committees

[John Penrose]

I plan to come to some of the cost savings that will be made by doing some things more efficiently. These changes should be pretty much self-funding. In future, when other developments are announced, we may have to have that conversation and answer that question case by case. However, these changes, at least, should be self-funding. There are substantial savings to be made by being more efficient in these cases. I will try to give the hon. Gentleman some more detail so that he can see what I mean.

First, the redesign will be achieved by amending the individual electoral registration—IER—application forms to allow applicants to identify that they are the only person aged 16 or over resident at the address, and to provide discretion to electoral registration officers—EROs—as to when canvass forms must be sent where such information has been given. That means that they will not waste time and effort—returning to the question asked by the hon. Member for Harrow West—in following up people who no longer live at a particular address.

Secondly, the regulations will modernise the system of registration by enabling EROs to send invitations to register—ITRs—and ITR reminders by electronic means if they so wish. I apologise, Sir Roger, for all the three-letter acronyms we are dealing with. The provisions aim to reduce the potential for confusion for members of the public by cutting down on unnecessary ERO correspondence and contact, and to reduce the overall cost of registration and the administrative burden on councils. It is estimated that the single occupancy provision will reduce the overall cost of individual electoral registration by about £1.1 million, and the provision regarding email invitations to register by about £7 million per year.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I understand the argument about efficiency, but surely it would make sense to tie in with existing administration. For instance, surely a catch-all registration when people register for a council tax discount or housing benefit payments would be far more efficient than chasing people after the fact.

[John Penrose]

I will not trespass on your good nature, Sir Roger, by venturing too far beyond the remit of the measure before us, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are further steps that we can, and hope to, take in due course, many of which will revolve around better use of data that are already held, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. There are steps that we plan to take. They are not in the regulations at the moment, but if the hon. Gentleman volunteers to come back for future debates on similar statutory instruments, I hope to make announcements about further improvements to the process.

The instrument will also allow an attester to an applicant’s identity to be registered in any local authority area in England and Wales. At present, both the attester and the applicant must be registered in the same local authority. The provision will assist applicants whose identity cannot be verified using the usual Department for Work and Pensions matching process, local data matching or documentary evidence and who must provide an attestation from a suitable reputable individual. The change will result in more eligible applicants becoming registered to vote.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon in the Chair]

In addition, the regulations make a number of minor amendments. Regulation 9 corrects an error in the existing regulations concerning the requirement to provide fresh signatures following rejection of a postal voting statement. Regulation 10 makes a technical amendment to a regulation concerning the rejected postal vote provisions at Greater London Authority elections. Regulation 11 corrects an oversight in the current regulations and adds the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to the list of organisations entitled to receive a free copy of the full electoral register. The regulations make a consequential amendment that changes the name of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales, which is entitled to a copy of the register from Welsh EROs, to the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales.

Finally, on the topic of technical amendments, Mrs Moon —good to see you—I draw the Committee’s attention to a minor error in the draft regulations as laid. The reference in regulation 8(c) to paragraph 3(aa)(ii) should be to paragraph (3)(za)(ii)—a tiny but apparently important amendment. We have consulted with the counsels to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in relation to that and, owing to the minor nature of the error, they are content for it to be corrected when the instrument is made.

The Electoral Commission has been consulted about the instrument. It was given details of the timing of the electoral registration officers’ ability to elect to suppress one canvass for single occupancy households. Generally, the maximum period for a property not receiving a canvass form will be 18 months, and the EROs will have discretion to contact properties more frequently if they feel it relevant. For example, many electoral registration officers have discretion to contact properties before an election to ensure their register is as complete as possible. The Scottish Government also asked for similar clarification.

The Information Commissioner’s Office was also consulted, and it asked about the type of information to be provided by the applicant about other individuals at a particular address. We have provided reassurance that the applicant will not have to provide any personal details about any other person resident at a property. The ICO also noted that the single occupancy information is not mandatory and that it expects the statement to that effect to be clear and prominent in order that applicants are fully aware that the information is not required. The Information Commissioner’s advice was passed on to the Electoral Commission, to be taken into account during the form design process.

The Cabinet Office expert panel of electoral administrators was involved in the development of the cost optimisation measures and was supportive. The Scottish Government suggested that the attestation provision should be extended to allow an electoral registration officer in England and Wales to seek assurances from EROs in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We responded that, rather than placing a burden on Scottish and Northern Irish officials from which those officials could not currently benefit, we would develop joint policy on cross-border attestations with the relevant Governments in due course. I can confirm that I have had correspondence recently with Mr FitzPatrick in the Scottish Government.

In conclusion, the Government believe that the Statutory Instrument before the Committee today makes some useful, largely technical changes as a result of realising the Government’s vision for future electoral registration. It is the start of a process rather than the completion of it and there is further to go, but I hope that the Committee will support this on the basis that it is a sensible beginning of an important journey.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. May I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for leading the all-party group on this important issue?

A lot of ground has been covered in the debate, and I will not repeat other Members’ points. There is a pattern of bookmakers clustering in towns with high levels of deprivation. I speak from the perspective of Oldham, which the Office for National Statistics recently announced as the most deprived town in England. We see massive clustering there of not only bookmakers but payday loan shops, logbook loan shops and pawnbrokers. There is a cycle of people hoping they are going to win, losing and then pawning gold or something from their house to get more money, which they feed back into the machines.

I do not accept at all that the arguments on this issue are conflicted. It is true that these machines are being used for money laundering. In fact, during the course of this debate, constituents have sent me messages on Twitter in which they name bookmakers in Oldham that are quite open about the fact that these terminals are used for money laundering. Let’s face it, if someone wants to find a way of cleaning money, losing 10% of it through one of these machines is not a bad transactional cost.

The poorest in society are paying the price. In 2014, Oldhamers fed £29 million into 100 terminals, losing an estimated £5.5 million. That is money from the pockets of the people who can least afford it. I believe in people being able to make adult choices about these things, but we have seen that the bookmakers cannot be trusted to monitor and support people who have problems. I will give one example. In Chadderton precinct, I can be stood at the door of one Ladbrokes—a bookmakers that has four fixed odds betting terminals, which is the maximum it is allowed—and you, Sir Alan, can be stood as close as we are now, at the other Ladbrokes across the precinct, which has the same number of terminals. Bookmakers know the rules and will seek a way around them. Any sense that we can trust bookmakers, which are there to make money, to look after people who are falling into trouble and have problems is wrong. I do not trust them one bit.

We need proper and fair regulation that strikes a balance between treating people like adults and letting them make a conscious decision to spend the money they earn however they choose, and ensuring there are proper restrictions where bookmakers are taking liberties. I do not believe that the Local Government Association and the 100-odd local authorities that are supporting the proposals made under the fantastic leadership of Newham Council are wrong. They know their communities, and they are asking for more Government action and local accountability and support. That is the least we can do to address this very real modern problem.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

Let me take my pick. I give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is it not misleading for the Government to describe this as a devolution measure? Is it not simply a fact that the moment one council adopts these powers, every neighbouring council will be forced to follow suit?

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

Was that the hon. Gentleman’s point as well? I give way to him.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, because this follows on smoothly from the previous intervention. Before Christmas, I was a member of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which the Government consulted on the devolution of Sunday trading powers. I can categorically say that those powers were not asked for or requested; they were forced on that body.

[Mr Burrowes]

There will be the inevitable domino effect of a race to the bottom if local authorities get hold of the powers. We should not just see this as a matter that can be left to local authorities. The Government have said that this provision is good for high streets, businesses, shop workers and families.

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

As I mentioned before, the total cost of Spads since the general election has started to fall.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

This cannot be taken in isolation. The fact is that the Government do not like being held to account. That is precisely why we now have the Trade Union Bill, why charities are being gagged by the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill and why the Government are cutting the money to the Opposition. The truth is that they might be able to win a vote, but they cannot win the argument.

[John Penrose]

I keep on coming back to the central point that it is perfectly possible to undertake policy raising and policy development tasks more cheaply than before, as the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) mentioned. The rest of the country would not understand why, when everyone else has had to become more efficient, politicians should somehow be a special case. They would accuse us of feathering our own nests, and it would be extremely hard to justify that kind of action to anyone outside this place.