Finance (No. 2) Bill

Luke Graham Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler]

I agree that it is good to get companies to publish their pay gap information, but there are no teeth if companies fail to do so. That is a real problem that needs to be addressed. We need to tackle the gender pay gap, and there needs to be punishment for companies that fail to address the pay gap—that is an unfortunate failing in the Government’s plan.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that voluntary publication schemes—such as on participation, as demonstrated by the Crossrail project—show that companies will comply through social pressure? There is a brand equity question, so we do not need a hard punishment. Through brand equity and reputation, there will be punishment enough if companies fail to comply.

[Dawn Butler]

Again, the problem is that very few companies have actually published, and the deadline is quickly approaching.

The letter from the right hon. Member for Putney went on to say that the Treasury would complete a cumulative impact assessment. I have yet to receive confirmation of that cumulative impact assessment, so will the Minister confirm that it has been done and whether a copy will be placed in the Library?

I know that it is often difficult for the Government to hear the Opposition’s views, so I urge them to listen to the voices of Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the Chair of the Treasury Committee. The Committee is obviously a little perplexed by the lack of commitment to equality impact assessments. The Chancellor has complained about the type of data gathered, but when he was asked whether he had asked the Office for National Statistics about the gathering of that data, he replied that he had not. That does not exactly show a commitment to equality, does it?

The Treasury Committee went on to say:

“The Treasury should use ONS and HMRC data to produce and publish robust equalities impact assessments of future Budgets, including the individual tax and welfare measures contained within them. A deficiency of data in respect of some protected characteristics is not a reason for failing to produce an analysis in respect of others for which data is available. Nor should the risk of misinterpretation or methodological complexity preclude the publication of an Equalities Impact Assessment.”

In short, just do it.

The only reference in the Budget to identified gender impact is where it disproportionately affects men. What possible reason could there be for that? I understand that the Treasury Committee would welcome an explanation of the Government’s thinking, and so would we. It just does not make sense. The Chancellor alluded to the fact that Ministers see the equality impact assessments for their Departments. That makes me wonder: if Ministers see them, read them and give proper due regard to them, why would they implement the policies they do?

If the Government fail to support this new clause, there can be no public confidence in the Government’s commitment to protect and not punish people with protected characteristics. For the record, let me say that the nine protected characteristics are age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy; maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. I understand that the Prime Minister is a little pre-occupied and weak at the moment and that she is dealing with a serious ransom note, but I honestly believe she will not be pleased that her legacy will be the hindering of women and their life chances.

More children are homeless or living in temporary accommodation now than at any time since the 2007-08 financial crash. Shelter says that homelessness is a national scandal and estimates that 140 families become homeless every day. The estimate of rough sleeping shows an increase of 134%. Every day, we see and hear the damaging effects that this Government’s policies have had on people, especially those with protected characteristics. This Government are damaging, not protecting, vulnerable groups in our society. Even when the Government conduct an equality impact assessment, they seem to ignore it. Just two weeks ago, they released an equality impact assessment that revealed more bursaries will be axed—this is for about 1,000 nurses who enter the profession each year. The assessment revealed that the latest change risks discouraging women who are ethnic minority or from poorer backgrounds, but the Government went ahead and did this in any case.

We need a Prime Minister who cares enough to start laying foundations by which we can bring about true equality for women, diverse communities, LGBT+ communities and those with protected characteristics. A Labour Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) would do just that. A Labour Government’s success will be measured by how they reduce inequality. The next Labour Government will ensure that we publish comprehensive equality impact assessments and conduct them before implementing policies. A Labour Government would have pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny to ascertain whether policies are making a situation better or worse. The Labour way will enable us to truly build an economy for the many and not the few. If the Government fail to support this very reasonable new clause, more people will question—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that people should not feel that they should have to get into a marriage, a civil partnership or any kind of signing on a dotted line relationship, to get a tax break. People should have the choice on that. As I said, this allowance has a disproportionately positive effect on people who are married, particularly on men; it is women who tend to be disadvantaged because they cannot receive this allowance.

Turning to other things in the new clause, I have previously talked, particularly during consideration of the customs Bill, about the differential regional impacts that Brexit will have, particularly now that the leaked Government analysis shows that there will be significantly higher negative impact on areas in the north of England, for example, than in London and the south-east of England. Therefore, when the Government make policy they should be making sure they are trying to balance that out and to put in place policies that are more beneficial to those negatively impacted areas, to counterbalance the major negative effect that Brexit will have.

We need to provide the people in those areas, particularly those at the bottom of the pile, with a fairer system that is better for them. Were the Government to analyse that, we would be in a better position and could see more clearly what they thought the impact would be. Part of the problem is that the Government do not know the impact of some of these policies. They do not know what the differential impact will be because they have not looked at it. If they have all this analysis, it should be easy for them to publish it and to give it to Members, so that we can scrutinise it and make the best decisions.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Lady talks about regional disparity; does she really think that the Scottish National party policy of increasing taxes in Scotland is a good way to narrow that disparity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I agree. We should not just look at the outcomes. The outcomes are a desired end but, in order to get to a better outcome, the key is to give people opportunities to make the most of their lives. In particular, we should help those who have a difficult start, or who find themselves in a difficult situation. They may need extra help to access the opportunities but, absolutely, opportunity is the key.

Rather than painting a picture that can mislead people into believing this illusion of a perfect world, we need to base claims on substantial policies. I know that it is controversial, but universal credit is making a difference in my constituency for people who want to work and who want to work more hours. I have heard many criticisms of the policy, but genuinely it is making a difference and giving people the opportunity to increase the work that they do. Improvements in the standard of education and the opportunities coming through thanks to the industrial strategy—these are the concrete policies that will make life better for people. That is how we reduce inequalities and that is why I am delighted to support the Government throughout this Finance Bill.

[Luke Graham]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the chance to speak on new clause 9 and more broadly.

As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), I appreciate that we should look at the distribution and at the impacts of some of the Budget provisions. That is what the Treasury already does. At every budgetary event, it does look at the impact on distribution across the United Kingdom. ONS statistics also look at distribution and the impact across different households.

When we talk about making sure that we shine a light on these issues and target equality, for which I and many Members share the hon. Lady’s passion, we should recognise that this is the Government who put pressure on companies to produce these publications. Although there is not yet full compliance, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will continue to put pressure on the sector—I referred to this matter earlier—to follow other industry-leading programmes such as Crossrail, which use publication and peer review to add pressure and to show companies what best practice is in the UK and internationally.

Let me pick up on some broader points about the pay gap, particularly the gender pay gap. I hope that Opposition Members saw the recent study quoted in the Financial Times just a month ago—I would be happy to share it with them—which looked at male and female pay rates. Those rates were actually very equal up to around middle-to-senior manager level, after which there was a big gap. The biggest disparity, and where some of the most uneven gap appears, was at the very senior roles, as in chief executive officer and chief financial officer roles. One of the key drivers for that, as stated in that study, was women taking maternity leave. So we have already identified the pay gap problem, and we should be looking at policies to increase flexible working and to help women back into the workplace after taking maternity leave. I know that colleagues on the Front Bench have been looking into that and have reflected that in the Budget.

More broadly, let me pick up on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) about tax and equality. Just to be clear—new clause 9 refers to every part of the United Kingdom—some of the tax increases that have just been made in Scotland are said to produce a much fairer society, but, to clarify this for the House, the tax changes mean that those on the lowest incomes in Scotland get £20 more a year—that is it. That is 38p a week. When Scottish National party Members stand in this House and lecture this Front Bench and this Government on being unfair, let us remember that the tax changes that the SNP has introduced bring in 38p a week, or £20 a year, and the tax changes that the Conservatives have introduced bring in £1,500 a year through the changes to the tax threshold. Let us leave the SNP to bicker on the sidelines while the Conservatives bring about truly transformational change.

I was also amazed by what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said about the marriage allowance. I am glad that she was pulled up on it, because the party has been in the papers about the marriage allowance just this weekend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the UK Government had to stand up and guarantee to people living in Scotland that the Government will bridge the gap created in the marriage allowance by the tax changes that have been imposed by the SNP Administration in Holyrood. Yet again, it is the UK Exchequer that is having to stump up for SNP failures in Scotland.

When we talk about fairness, it is also important to recognise that it is this Budget that is increasing the block grants in Scotland in real terms. It was even recognised by the Finance Secretary, Derek Mackay, in the Scottish Parliament, that it is a real-terms increase. Therefore, on top of the £1,750 per head spending we get—or Union dividend we get—already, we are getting a further real-terms increase to spend on frontline services in Scotland.

I am conscious of the time, but one important area that impacts on equality issues is tax avoidance, which has been picked up in the Budget. I am talking not only about tax avoidance generally, but about the VAT provision. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, has been specifically interested in that. The provisions that have been included to target VAT avoidance, especially for international payment platforms and for international marketplaces, give the Exchequer a good opportunity to target those who are not currently paying VAT but who should. Hopefully, that will bring more money into UK coffers and allow us to close the equality gap further still.

[Rachel Maclean]

I appreciate that we are all concerned with driving equality across the country, but the Government clearly differ from the Opposition on how to achieve that. I am proud to be part of a Government who are one of the most progressive we have seen. Our record speaks for itself. It is not about slogans and words; it is about real progress and real change in people’s lives. That is what the Conservative party cares about. Labour Members would like us to introduce a review for every provision in the legislation. It is clear to Conservative Members that this already happens. The Treasury already publishes the impact analysis of these policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) referred to me when she mentioned the figures. I was quoting a study referenced in the Financial Times that I would be happy to share. The study did not say that the gender pay gap was closing. It said that men and women up to a certain level of seniority earn pretty much the same amount in most sectors, and that it is the outliers at the senior C-level who skew the data and contribute to a lot of the pay gap. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady may shake her head, but she mentioned clarification of figures, asked where they were from and called out my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), so I wanted to make sure that she had pure clarification. I also want to make it very clear to her that I am the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, not all of Scotland.

[Rachel Maclean]

It is clear that we all take this matter extremely seriously.

Earlier I intervened on the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. She said that the Government have no teeth to act when companies do not publish the data. It is my understanding that the Government do have teeth to act. We have something called the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which can act when companies fail to publish the data. I urge Treasury Ministers to pay close attention to that.

From the work I have done in the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I am aware that a number of companies have published the data. That is great news because it is now in the public domain. The Conservative Government made that happen, not the Labour Government. Now many more companies are following suit, and it is making a big difference to the employees of those companies. The Equality and Human Rights Commission can issue a notice and require implementation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) said, this is a complex issue.

I draw Members’ attention to the work of the 30% Club, set up by Helen Morrissey, who got a load of business leaders together and urged them to take voluntary action to put women on boards. Although there was absolutely no legal right or Government mandate, she found that the business leaders were all worried about reputational damage, culture and their image with their employees, and she saw significant changes across the board. I was an employer before I came into this House, so I know that addressing the issue is not simply a matter of passing laws in the Chamber or the Government carrying out a review. It is about a societal and cultural change. I am proud that our Government, led by our Prime Minister—the second female Conservative Prime Minister—are leading from the front on this issue, and that companies and businesses across the board are following suit.

The Government’s record speaks for itself. It is not just about slogans. It is about enacting policies that make a big difference. I worry that requiring analyses and placing additional burdens on the Treasury at this time—when it has a massive amount of priorities to deliver in order to make our tax system fairer and to achieve the progress and outcomes that we all want—would have the opposite effect. I have certainly seen for myself the danger of unintended consequences when we regulate and put more burdens on businesses.

I do not support new clause 9 and will not vote for it if there is a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

Unlike Conservative Members, I have high regard for Treasury officials, and I do not trash the data produced by civil servants in the way that Ministers of the Crown do. I think civil servants are a very good example of experts, and I would like the expertise of the Treasury and the civil service to be drawn upon to produce exactly the kind of equality impact assessment that Labour is calling for in new clause 9.

It is because I have faith in civil servants’ insight and ability to gather and garner evidence to inform Ministers that I would like to see a more evidence-based approach to public policy making. If we had such an approach, we would undoubtedly have a better quality of government—and goodness knows we need that, when we look at the current state of things. We would also have a better quality of debate in the House about what our priorities are, the challenges facing the country and how to tackle them.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Gentleman makes a big play of analysis. Can he inform the House of the analysis that Labour has undertaken of the distributional impact of £170 billion of extra borrowing and the interest payments on our communities?

[Wes Streeting]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he makes exactly the point I have made since the general election. We put forward policies in our manifesto—by the way, they proved immensely popular across the country and led to a result that a lot of people were not expecting—and I think we should do a distributional analysis of such policies across the board to make sure that resources are properly targeted where they are needed.

In conclusion, we should not fear such information and evidence, which would lead to better-informed government. The greatest tragedy of this Prime Minister is not the fact that she is being held hostage by the hard Brexiteers on the right of her party; it is that she has not delivered on a single one of the sentiments in the fine words she said on the steps of Downing Street about creating a more equal society and tackling injustices that are still burning injustices even in one of the richest economies in the world in the 21st century. Sentiments are all well and good, but we need policies that are backed up by evidence and reason, and we need the ability genuinely to tackle the problems that the Prime Minister set out so long ago on the steps of No. 10, but which I fear she will never be able to implement before they boot her out next year.

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Luke Graham Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). I congratulate him on securing this important debate, with the support of the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), at the Backbench Business Committee hearing. The fact that so many Members are present on a Thursday for this debate shows how many of us have constituents who have been affected by the RBS Global Restructuring Group, and their problems are the reason why we are here. The debate is being watched closely both in this House and outside. I pay tribute to my constituents who have been affected and the many other people who have contacted me. As the hon. Member for Norwich South said, people have lost their homes, their health and their marriages, and in some cases far more than that.

As we heard from the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), it is now more than three years since the publication of the Tomlinson report, which led to the FCA’s decision to appoint an independent investigator to look in detail at what happened at GRG. The previous Treasury Committee, under the chairmanship of Andrew Tyrie, took evidence from Mr Tomlinson and RBS. RBS then had to apologise to the Committee for giving misleading evidence about the role and objectives of GRG. The Committee pressed for disclosure of the findings of the FCA’s independent review. The new Treasury Committee in this Parliament, which I am privileged to chair, has been determined to continue the work of its predecessor, hence the number of documents tagged with this debate listed on the Order Paper.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that apologies simply are not good enough? For the many of our constituents who have suffered in their business interests and personal lives, we need this inquiry and tribunal so that we achieve justice for our constituents.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend makes an important point with his customary passion, and he is absolutely right. I will come on to talk about the tribunal, but he is right that there are significant losses, some of which cannot be quantified. However, sometimes just starting by saying sorry can take the sting out of the situation, but we are still waiting for that.

Faced with the FCA’s continued refusal to publish the section 166 report, my Committee appointed an independent QC to review the summary and to make sure that it was an accurate reflection of the full report with no material omissions. The FCA’s final summary was finally published on 28 November 2017. Although it is written in neutral and technical language, it exposes a litany of poor conduct, mentioning “insensitive, dismissive and…aggressive” relations with customers and

“a culture of deal making…that set little store by the interests of customers”.

It also referred to “inadequate and inappropriate” complaints handling and a failure to handle “inherent” conflicts of interest—the list goes on. Just yesterday, in a letter to me, RBS published its 2009 “Just Hit Budget!” memo, which we had already heard about. That lifts the lid on a culture at RBS, however much it tries to distance itself from that.

Given all that, it is unfortunate that the FCA and RBS decided to state that

“the most serious allegations made against the bank have not been upheld”

when the FCA published its interim summary. I think we all agree that what happened is still very serious, and I am sure that many firms agree.

It is also disappointing that RBS—again, pressed by the Treasury Committee—has disclosed that it does not accept many of the findings. In particular, it disagrees that inappropriate treatment of SMEs was “systematic or widespread”. RBS appears to be isolated on this, with the FCA supporting the conclusions of the independent review.

The Committee will take evidence from RBS and Promontory, the firm that conducted the review, very shortly. I encourage all Members who have not yet sent us evidence on behalf of constituents to do so. While the Treasury Committee does not consider individual cases, we will keep RBS’s feet to the fire over the functioning of its redress scheme.

I agree with the spirit of the comments of the hon. Member for Norwich South, too, because he is right to look at not just what went wrong, but the future, as the second half of the motion does. For small, financially distressed businesses, as he said, what we have is not a partnership of equals, but an unbalanced and potentially exploitative relationship in which banks can use their legal and financial firepower to ensure that their interests prevail over those of their customers.

As we have heard, the FCA told the Committee in October last year that it is considering broadening the scope of the Financial Ombudsman Service, but there is concern that the Government might not be prepared to consider a legislative solution. I would welcome the Minister addressing that point. The House will have to seriously consider whether the FCA solution is merely a sticking plaster, and if so whether the responsibility falls to us, as parliamentarians, to consider what legislation might be required.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Luke Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Thewliss]

We support the U-turn by the UK Government to allow VAT to be reclaimed by Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I should declare that I was a councillor on the board of Strathclyde fire and rescue when this was being discussed; I know the matter well and know the issues that the Minister referred to. There was a great deal of correspondence at that time from Scottish Government Ministers to the UK Government, requesting that the change be made, so it is with some incredulity that we hear, “Oh wait; all of a sudden we have just realised, yes, we are going to fix it now”—now, rather than several years earlier.

It seems logical that if the argument stands today and it stood in the Budget, then it stood all along, so the Government should do right by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland and refund the VAT that we are due. Given that those services’ funding was pushed on to the Scottish Government via the UK Government’s austerity agenda, they very much need that money.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a fair point, but the simple fact is that the Scottish Government knew that the changes were going to incur VAT charges. Does she accept not only that the Government have changed their policy position, benefiting police and fire services in Scotland, but that they have increased in real terms the block grant to Scotland? It is not austerity: Scotland is getting more funding under this Conservative Administration, not less.

[Alison Thewliss]

I very much dispute that point, as would the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

[Luke Graham]

You can’t—it’s a fact.

[The Chair]

Order.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Luke Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point that goes to the heart of much of today’s discussion: those who seek to avoid should pay appropriate penalties.

The slowness of HMRC to respond to growing fraud online has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, which raised concerns first in April 2013 and more recently in October 2017. It is not alone; the National Audit Office reported in 2013 that

“HMRC had not…produced a comprehensive plan to react to the emerging threat to the VAT system posed by online trading.”

The report found that HMRC had developed tools to identify internet-based traders and launched campaigns to encourage compliance, but had shown less urgency in developing an operational response to it.

Trader groups, such as the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, have been raising concerns for many years, and claim that online VAT fraud has been a problem from as early as 2009, yet the Government did not recognise the problem until 2015. Nearly three years later, the Government are finally introducing measures that will force the Amazons and eBays of this world to be held jointly accountable for the VAT of online vendors that use their sites.

My understanding is that HMRC has instead pursued civil operations against suspected evaders, as HMRC claims that difficulties in prosecuting suspected online fraud make that route lengthy, costly and uncertain of outcome; I suppose that is justice. Barriers include sellers being based outside the EU, and the need to show intent to commit fraud. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many operations HMRC has pursued since 2015, and what their outcomes were.

The Public Accounts Committee report on online VAT fraud found that HMRC had only recently begun to take the problem seriously, despite the fact this fraud leads to significant loss of revenue to the Exchequer, in effect depriving our public services of the funds they so desperately need. The Committee found that HMRC, rather than trying to use its pre-existing powers, waited until the introduction of new measures under the Finance Act 2016 before it attempted to hold online marketplaces responsible for VAT that had been fraudulently evaded by traders. HMRC has been too cautious in using those powers, and the Government have refused to name and shame non-complaint traders; so far, to my knowledge, they have not prosecuted a single one for committing online VAT fraud.

Professor de la Feria, an expert in tax law at the University of Leeds, pointed out that HMRC has not been doing enough to tackle the problem, despite the required legislation being in place. She argued that laws existing before the introduction of the 2016 measures provided scope.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I was at the hearing on VAT fraud. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that VAT is incredibly difficult to police, especially on e-commerce platforms, given the international nature of a lot of the trade, including by small traders in China? Does he not accept that changes put forward in the Budget address some of the concerns that the Public Accounts Committee raises, and mark a positive step on the Government’s part?

[Peter Dowd]

Yes and yes, but that does not alter the fact that we need to push on as much as we can with tackling this issue. The amendments go some way towards helping and, importantly, towards sending a message to those who choose to evade VAT. In online marketplaces and fulfilment houses, fraudulent activity continues fairly unabated, and we must do something about it.

Professor de la Feria also believes that part of the reason that HMRC has been slow to tackle online fraud is that it is most likely considered not cost-effective to pursue it. Online marketplaces and HMRC are not doing enough together to tackle the problem, notwithstanding the action that has been taken. Online marketplaces continue to earn their commissions, and so their profit, from people who are defrauding the British taxpayer. Amazon, for example, organises regular presentations at Chinese fairs—a point referred to by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire—to recruit overseas sellers, I suspect; has plans to buy a shipping company; and fulfils orders and handles payments. That all suggests a very embedded relationship with the seller. Those connections and networks are there; people must know each other to set them up. HMRC should use those relationships and networks to do something about the problem.

Until we can incentivise online marketplaces to act, they will continue to offer a lacklustre approach to tackling online VAT fraud. In September 2016, HMRC introduced new legal powers to tackle online VAT fraud and error. They allow HMRC to issue a warning to online marketplaces about potential sellers who are not paying VAT. Since their introduction, how many times has HMRC used the new powers? How many sellers has HMRC issued a warning about, and what was the result of the use of the powers? Since they were introduced, HMRC has seen an increase in the number of new VAT registrations from non-EU sellers, but HMRC confirms that it is not aware of the proportion of those sellers that have in the past been trading and not charging VAT, or whether those sellers will be compliant in future. Last year, HMRC told the Public Accounts Committee that it expected to collect £50 million more VAT in 2017 from the traders that had recently registered for VAT, so can the Minister confirm that HMRC has collected that money, or is on course to do so?

According to HMRC, some online VAT fraud is due to a lack of awareness, some overseas sellers being unaware that they need to pay VAT. Both Amazon and eBay, when testifying to the Public Accounts Committee, agreed with that view and described the lack of awareness of VAT rules as a major element of the problem. What efforts has HMRC made to educate sellers in the UK about potential VAT fraud? More importantly, what efforts have been made to ensure that overseas sellers are aware of the need to pay VAT?

The other part of the problem stems not from error, but from clear criminality. HMRC’s strategic threat assessment, carried out in 2014, concluded that it was highly likely that organised criminal groups based in the UK and overseas sellers in China were using fulfilment houses to facilitate the transit of undervalued or misclassified goods, or both, from China to the UK for sale online. It is particularly concerning that HMRC is uncertain of the exact number of fulfilment houses in the UK. Surely one of the first parts of cracking down on this criminality is establishing the exact number of fulfilment houses in operation. That goes some way to dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire. Perhaps the Minister can take a minute to explain what steps HMRC is taking to address the issue and crack down on organised criminal groups in the UK and other countries, and what efforts Border Force is making to tackle online VAT fraud by targeting fulfilment houses, where the goods are stored.

Once again, it seems that HMRC is hampered by the Government’s cuts to staffing and resources, and that this is having an impact on the Government’s ability to crack down on online VAT fraud. According to the Public and Commercial Services Union—HMRC’s trade union—in real terms, after the cost of inflation is taken into account, the resources available to HMRC are about 40% less today than they were in 2000. Since 2010, under this Government, HMRC’s staffing has fallen by 17%, and it is set to fall further under the “Building our Future” programme. These are important factors in relation to tackling evasion. That programme will close practically the entire departmental estate of 170 offices. How will that help with tackling the mass of VAT crime?

The elephant in the room is the added uncertainty about Brexit and its impact on the effectiveness of the measures. There is considerable uncertainty about the exact terms on which the UK will leave the EU, so it is vital to get to grips with this. Sellers based in the EU may end up operating under the same VAT terms as apply to non-EU sellers and therefore may also be tempted not to charge VAT. Perhaps the Minister can offer insight into what steps HMRC is taking to ensure that these measures will be robust, irrespective of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.

There are already considerable control weaknesses at the border. The most recent European Anti-Fraud Office report on customs duties was scathing about the state of UK customs, arguing that “continuous negligence” has deprived the EU of almost £2 billion in revenues on lost Chinese merchandise. According to the report, British customs played a central role by repeatedly ignoring warnings to take action over Chinese textiles and footwear pouring into the EU. Since then, HMRC has failed to open any criminal investigations into specific fraud schemes. The European Anti-Fraud Office is so aggrieved with the UK Government that it has recommended to the European Commission’s directorate-general for budget that the UK should be forced to pay £2 billion directly into the EU budget.

Banks and Communities

Luke Graham Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kerr]

Thank you very much. The hon. Gentleman has become my hon. Friend suddenly.

I have a fondness and affection for the Royal Bank of Scotland. It is a grand old Scottish institution, which has been ruined by the mismanagement of the directors of a decade ago.

I ask the Minister to look at what the banks propose. They are saying, “We are going to close the branch. Go to the post office.” That is not practical.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

My constituency faces closures in Alloa, Kinross and Comrie. In Comrie, we face exactly the issues that my hon. Friend has mentioned, with customers being referred from the bank branch, in a place where there is weak broadband, weak infrastructure and a post office in the newsagent. That is not acceptable to my constituents, and it is pathetic customer service from the Royal Bank of Scotland.

[Stephen Kerr]

The reality is that there are limitations on the amount of cash that can be taken and given out over the counter, and that must be confronted. The irony of all the closures, as has been mentioned twice in the debate, is that they affect the communities that have the weakest broadband connection. They are going to have to go digital without a broadband service. It is ridiculous and I call on the Minister to call on the Royal Bank of Scotland to conduct a proper review of and consultation on the branch closures.

RBS Rural Branch Closures

Luke Graham Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman is right; this is an issue on which many Members of the House from all parties have strong feelings. Indeed, I have been lobbied extensively by many of my colleagues who are in the Chamber this night, including in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), who have been vociferous in speaking up for their constituents on this issue.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows from our representations, we do not believe that the Royal Bank of Scotland is serving our constituents or its customers appropriately. Furthermore, the mitigating factors it is proposing, such as offering digital online services and post office services, do not work in our communities where the broadband is poor and the post offices are too small or insufficient for our local population.

[Stephen Barclay]

As a rural constituency MP, I recognise the importance of bank branches in our communities and, specifically, many of the challenges of travel in rural communities. Of course, RBS will have noted the comments about the staff impact made by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, and he will be well aware that RBS has a duty to consult its staff. I expect that it will be keen to respond to him on the specific allegation he made in the House this evening.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Luke Graham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), because I am going to enjoy setting out for him why I believe he is mistaken in considering this Finance Bill to be the best that we can do for this country. I hope he was here to hear the remarks of my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who set out some strong ideas about alternative ways to manage the public finances, and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), a fellow member of the Co-operative party, who set out how the Co-operative’s approach to public finances is different.

I was struck by what the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and several other Government Members said about their pride in how light and narrow the Bill is. Look at the country’s economic challenges; it sums up the Government perfectly that they should boast about how little they have to offer to tackle those challenges. They admit that this country has a productivity challenge—a long-overdue admission—but they have so little to offer to address it. They seem pleased to tell us that they are peaking their borrowing, rather than meeting the commitments made in 2010, when we all sat here and listened to the previous Chancellor tell us that austerity was the only way forward. Well, what a myth that has turned out to be. The Government are presiding over stagnating wages, meaning that my constituents will be lucky to see a pay rise within the next 10 years. Decades of austerity mean that we are a nation up to our eyeballs in personal debt—not by accident, but through this Government’s choices. We have not even begun to talk about the black hole of Brexit that is sucking both time and money from our Exchequer.

A light Finance Bill is not something to be proud of; it is indicative of a Government who are not serving the British public. The Government try to tell us that they are doing something about the massive housing crisis, but it is clear that their stamp duty proposals will simply push up house prices and do little for our constituents who have no savings and cannot get a deposit together to even begin to consider buying a property and paying stamp duty. The Bill will do nothing about the crisis in our private rented sector that is the cause of so much personal debt. People in our communities are now putting their mortgage or their rent on their credit cards in a desperate attempt to keep a roof above their head this Christmas.

People have the spectre of universal credit hovering over them, sucking out their time and energy as they try to make ends meet, because there is just too much month at the end of their money. We have not even begun to talk about the impact of the cuts on our public sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West ably pointed out the lack of police on our streets; we will lose 3,000 in London alone due to this Budget. Teachers are having to buy resources for their pupils. People need us to manage the public finances properly, which is what this Bill would do if it was meatier contribution to Britain’s future, but it is not.

I know what Government Members will say to Opposition Members: “Where would you find the money?”. I want to answer that question, say what this Bill could have done for the British public, and set out why the Government need to move from policy-based evidence making to evidence-based policy making by using impact assessments. These assessments are not necessarily popular, as we have seen from the Brexit Secretary, but they are absolutely the way forward when it comes to understanding what could be done for this country.

Let me turn first to one of the places where we could be saving money as a society. I know that Members on both sides of the House are worried about the private finance initiative, and all of us have seen its impact on the public finances. Governments of all colours have used private finance contracts; indeed, they continue to be used through private finance 2 schemes. We know that £1 billion of the money that should be going into our NHS will be leeched out in profits by private finance companies. That money could have built hospitals several times over, and could certainly deal with the crisis in NHS recruitment and the lack of resources in healthcare. I have called on the Government to learn the lessons of the Paradise papers and introduce a moratorium on public sector contracts going to such companies until we are clear about where their tax liabilities lie. However, I am disappointed that, yet again, Ministers have missed that opportunity.

As Ministers have pointed out, we will only get one such Bill a year in future through which to tackle how these companies operate. A small number of companies are leeching so much money out of our public services through the high costs of private finance contracts, and their high rates of returns and interest rates. Government Members can look at them as hire purchase agreements for the public sector. The Bill could have been the opportunity to set a clear red line for those companies, and to tell them that, instead of continuing to rip off our schools and our hospitals, we want them to come to the table to renegotiate contracts. The Bill could have been the opportunity to set up that moratorium, or to use the banking levy as a model for a windfall tax on such companies—a tax that could claim back the excessive profits that they are clearly making from the public sector. This is money that could have properly funded our police or gone towards ensuring that we pay our public sector workers properly, but we will all end up paying for that omission from this Bill. With the PF2 contracts coming online, it is clear that the Government have not learned the lessons about the cost of public sector borrowing that would have informed the Bill.

This Bill is being considered in the context of the Government having agreed to close the tax loophole whereby overseas-based companies sold UK commercial property without having to pay capital gains tax—what we called the magic money tree—but it has sadly become apparent since the Budget that the Government have not got to grips with the loophole. They think that they are going to raise only half a billion pounds, but it is clear, given the sums involved in commercial property sales in the UK, that we could be looking at £5 billion or £6 billion.

With this Bill, the Government could have learned the lessons of the Paradise papers, particularly as regards the loophole for companies that register properties in Luxembourg, because the Luxembourg treaties will allow those companies to avoid capital gains tax. I have repeatedly raised that with Ministers, because we know that our public sector desperately needs the £5.5 billion extra a year that properly closing the tax loophole could represent, yet Ministers seem not to care. They tell me that the Government’s policy is that

“all double taxation treaties should permit gains on the direct and indirect disposal of UK immovable property to be taxed in the UK.”

However, from their consultation document, I can see that they recognise that there is a loophole within their loophole. Paragraph 4.36 admits that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs understands that there is a problem if the properties are registered in Luxembourg. The Bill could have been the opportunity to address that and to state, “When we say we are going to close a tax loophole, we close it properly.” We know that £5.5 billion could make such a difference—but it will not. That is indicative of a Government who do not seem to do their homework.

That brings me on to why impact assessments matter so much, and why so many Members from Labour and other parties have been speaking about their importance, particularly when it comes to gender. One of the Minister’s colleagues actually suggested to me that the debate about gender impact assessments was a bit like the debate around foxhunting. Perhaps he confused fair game with the fairer sex; I am not quite sure. As a colloquialism, we have been calling this the lady data campaign, because it is about what happens when we start to identify the impact of policies on particular people.

There will be some, particularly on social media, who will roll their eyes at yet another one of those feminists getting up to bang on about women and all the special treatment they want. Let me be very clear: the point about lady data is a cold, hard economic argument. Bridging the UK gender pay gap has the potential to create an extra £150 billion a year in GDP by 2025, which is a 5% to 8% increase in GDP for all our regions. This should be a no-brainer for all concerned, but to be able to do that, we need better to understand where inequality lies in our society, and where individual policies help or hinder us in tackling it.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I support any measure to try to close the gap in gender equality of income. Does the hon. Lady welcome the moves made by this Government to introduce gender pay gap reporting, and to make it a legal obligation for all companies with more than 250 employees by April 2018?

[Stella Creasy]

I am so glad a new Member has raised one of the legacies of having an amazing feminist MP like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) in Government, fighting for gender pay gap reporting in the Equality Act 2010. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) nodding, because it is wonderful to see the feminist soul of so many Government Members coming through. I hope we can tempt them to support these measures.

The reality is that if the Government do not measure something, they cannot be held to account on what they are doing about it. That is the challenge we have. Good data keeps Governments honest and on track. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that inequality in British society is about one single issue, or indeed about one single group. It is about understanding where inequality lies and where individual and collective policies will make a difference. That is why it matters. We do not live in an equal society, so particular policy measures, such as those that this Finance Bill introduces, will have a differential impact.

We might have the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Equality Act, but equal pay is stagnating in Britain. Indeed, the figures for the past couple of years suggest that the gap is widening, not narrowing—crucially, among not just older women, but younger women. Among black and ethnic minority women, the gap is 26% for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women, and 24% for black African women. Women are twice as likely as men to receive the lowest pay. Only 36% of older women receive the full state pension. Therefore any finance measure that affects the tax and benefits situation in our country will have a differential impact.

Thankfully, organisations such as the Women’s Budget Group, the Fawcett Society, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Runnymede Trust have done what this Government have failed to do and started to identify the impact, so that we can understand just what the consequences are. Their research does not make happy reading for anybody who recognises that equality is one of the biggest economic motors we could have, and one of the best ways we could address the productivity gap in our society. Their figures show that this Government’s Budget will mean that women lose 10 times as much as they gain, with black and ethnic minority women losing 12 times as much.

What does that mean in practice? Forty-three per cent. of people do not earn enough to reach the tax threshold as it is—66% of them are women, and 41% of them have dependent children. When the Government raise the higher rate threshold, 73% of the beneficiaries are men. When we change corporation tax, we have to recognise that we do it in an environment in which shareholders, business owners and managers are disproportionately men. Men benefit more.

This is not about being a victim. This is not about pleading for special treatment. This is about understanding what measures the Government are introducing and how they are making it harder for us to unlock the potential of 51% of our society. It is about having a better economy and a better society, because there is a link between diversity and prosperity.

I am tired of people who eye-roll at this, and of Government Members who see this as being like foxhunting. Frankly, even if they do not get the strong economic or social case for this, they are legally required to do it. The public sector equality duty was introduced in 2011, and it means that the Government have to not just manage these things but do something about them. That includes being able to track the difference they are making, yet this Government have still failed to do any equality impact assessment, let alone a cumulative one. The only equality impact assessments that are published are in the tax information and impact notes, which have a sentence or two buried away in line 324b saying that most of the Government’s policies have little impact at all, or denying any impact. There has certainly been no impact assessment on things like alcohol excise duty rates or fuel duty giveaways—two policies that, again, have a differential impact on men and women.

We have not even begun to talk about the public sector pay cap, and Members on both sides of the House recognise that, when two thirds of our public sector workforce are women, a failure to pay the public sector properly clearly pushes more women into poverty. We can argue about the underlying inequalities that might cause the environment in which these policies operate, and we can argue about the policies’ impact, but we cannot let this Government get away either with saying that they cannot do these calculations when others such as the IFS have, or with arguing that any inequality caused by policies in a Finance Bill will be offset by spending in another Bill. It simply does not make sense. If they cannot measure it, how can they decide it is being offset by something else? That is why it is time that we had this data. [Interruption.]

I understand that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), would like me to sit down. I am sorry to disappoint him, but 51% of this population are being held back by a Government who do not even know what damage they are doing, and 100% of us deserve better. The way we do that is by holding this Government to account on the public sector equality duty, which says that the Government have a legal duty before making any decisions. It is not enough to consider the impact on equality afterwards. The duty is ongoing, and it is about not just a buried report once in a while, but consistent impact assessments. The duty also says it cannot be delegated—that Ministers cannot leave it to somebody else to figure out what damage they are doing. It also says that, when a problem has been identified, the Government have to act, and that a lack of resources—having just set out where the Government can get some resources, I do not accept there is a lack of them—is not an excuse.

These are examples of how this Budget and this Finance Bill are failing this country. We are in denial of some of the major challenges we face on productivity. This is about having the information so that we can understand how we can make better choices, and about how we have a Government who seem unconcerned that they are breaching the public sector equality duty. That is indicative of a wider problem facing the British public. They have a Government who, right now, have run out of ideas, who are lacking in leadership and who are struggling under the weight of Brexit, but we all know who is going to pay. It is the men and women in our communities who are struggling with debt—the men and women in households who are being disproportionately hit by Government policy.

Inequality is expensive for us all. All of Britain is held back when talent is held back because it is living in poverty. I hope I have shown that there is money to be found and data to be collected if there is a political will. The Brexit Secretary says that he does not have to be very clever to do his job, but I believe the British public do need competency. If they cannot get it from the Government Benches, they can certainly find it on the Labour Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of both the content and the intent of this Finance Bill. As I said in a previous debate, a Budget is not simply a piece of accounting but a statement of intent by the Government for the coming year. As a new Member, it was an honour to lobby and to argue on behalf of my constituents and to be able to see, on 22 November, that the Government had delivered for all of our constituencies in Scotland. I thank my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for that.

I wish to take a moment to reiterate the key areas in which the UK Government have delivered for those of us who represent Scottish constituencies: a duty freeze for the Scotch whisky industry; a tax break for the oil and gas industry through the transferable tax history scheme; and a funding commitment to a number of city deals across Scotland, including for my constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire with the Tay cities deal and the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city deal.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the Chancellor removed the VAT payments for the Scottish police and fire services, which are worth an estimated £35 million to £40 million a year. That in particular should not be underestimated. The Scottish police and fire services were liable to pay VAT in the first place only due to the centralisation of the services by the Scottish National party Administration in Edinburgh. Since that centralisation, the cost to Scotland and its key services has been £140 million.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Graham]

Not just now. I wish to make more progress.

That decision was made in the face of warnings. It was an entirely political decision, fuelled by the SNP’s central belt bias and obsessive power-grabbing in Edinburgh. It therefore fell to the Scottish Conservative group to fight for Scotland and to the Conservative Chancellor to rectify those extremely damaging errors inflicted on Scotland by the SNP.

Having been shown who is truly “stronger for Scotland”, the SNP has made it its mission to undermine the hard-won successes for Scotland and to dismiss the efforts of the Conservative group here in Westminster and the Conservative Government, who have helped to deliver so much for Scotland. We all know why it has done so: it does not fit in with its narrative of grievance for the Conservatives not only to act in the best interests of their constituents and to have them at heart, but to deliver on those interests.

Ahead of Thursday’s Scottish Budget, we can all safely expect the SNP Administration in Edinburgh to carry on with their shameless Westminster finger-pointing, blaming Westminster for giving them the exemption on VAT; chastising Westminster for giving them the “wrong” money; and demanding even more from the Scottish people in the form of tax increases imposed by Holyrood.

Those are all significant broad-brush statements, but I wish to go into some detail about what the measures in the Budget mean for our constituencies in Scotland. For those who are not familiar with the hugely beneficial impact of the Barnett formula in Scotland, let me explain that Scotland benefits to the tune of £1,750 per head by remaining a part of the United Kingdom. It is also worth reminding Members that, in practice, that represents a higher rate of spending per head than England and Wales. Before we get into a dispute about figures, let me tell the House that those statistics are from the SNP’s own Government expenditure and Revenue Scotland figures. In addition, we very much welcome the £600 million more that will be spent on rail, which is an increase on the last spending period.

[Stephen Kerr]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those are indeed the dividends of the Union?

[Luke Graham]

I could not agree more, and I will go further into those dividends shortly.

The Government have delivered an additional £2 billion to Scotland in the Budget, which should be a reason to rejoice. However, they are being criticised by SNP Members. [Interruption.] The House can hear them trying to talk me down now, which is not a surprise, because no matter how high the price or how good the deal, the SNP is not satisfied. It reminds me of the Roald Dahl story, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”. We have the political manifestation of Veruca Salt sat just across from us; SNP Members go from room to room, shouting what they want and demanding more and more, yet they are never satisfied. Conservative Members have heard the interests of our constituents and we have delivered for them.

[Alison Thewliss]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government are actually creating far more families like Charlie Bucket’s, with old people huddling together in bed because they cannot afford to live?

[Luke Graham]

I could not disagree more. More money is going directly to frontline services, and we are lowering taxes for the working families who are most in need, so the hon. Lady will see that Charlie and Grandpa are on the Government side tonight, not the SNP side.

As we look ahead to the Scottish Budget on Thursday, colleagues in this House and in Holyrood will be waiting with bated breath to learn precisely how the SNP plans to pass the additional money to local authorities for the roll-out of broadband and other key areas of investment that it has thus far undermined. To see how contradictory some of the SNP’s behaviour is, it is worth looking at how the party misuses the powers it has, refusing to pass some of the increases in the block grant to education and health funding—matters that are explicitly devolved. As we heard in the Budget, the block grant has increased to more than £31.1 billion, which is a real-terms increase over the spending review period and up from £27 billion in 2011-12. What does that mean for our constituents? Well, we have a breakdown of how devolved spending is carried out in public services, thanks to Jim Gallagher. Under the SNP, NHS Scotland is underfunded and understaffed. Health spending in Scotland has increased more slowly than in England over the past 10 years, growing by 34% compared with 50%. Per head, that translates to spending growth of 39% in England but only 28% in Scotland.

SNP Members may complain about Tory austerity, but their argument does not stack up. Her Majesty’s Treasury figures show that total health spending increased by 9% in England between 2011-12 and 2015-16, but only by 3.4% in Scotland over the same period. After 20 years of devolution and 10 years of an SNP Administration, people living in Scotland still have the lowest life expectancy in the United Kingdom. That is a damning indictment of the financial choices the SNP has taken in Holyrood with funding from this place. I could go on, but I am conscious of time.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Please do.

[Luke Graham]

Well, education is another area that I could touch on. Reading scores and mathematics and science results are down in Scotland since 2006. England and Northern Ireland now outperform Scotland in every category.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Graham]

I will not, because I am conscious of time.

Under the SNP, more money goes in but fewer services are delivered. With a record like that, it is disappointing for Conservative Members that SNP Members stand in this Chamber and criticise what this Budget has delivered for Scotland. There is £2 billion extra for Scotland.

[Kirsty Blackman]

No, there is not.

[Luke Graham]

Yes, there is, and there is a real-terms increase, as the hon. Lady knows. There has been a whisky duty freeze, and police and fire service VAT has been returned to Scotland. Those are good things. I hope that colleagues in all parties in Holyrood can use this funding productively and work constructively so that the two levels of Scottish government can work together and deliver for their constituents.

Public Sector Pay

Luke Graham Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dan Carden]

Having seen that at first hand, I could not agree more. It is worth noting that the Prison Officers Association is lobbying Parliament tomorrow; I hope many colleagues can get along to that.

I must touch on Aintree Hospital, which is also in my constituency. Nurses there have faced a 14% pay cut since 2010, and one in four are taking jobs outside their employment as nurses to make ends meet and to pay the bills. The effect of the pay cap on our hospitals is to cost us more, as hospitals are having to recruit nurses through agencies at a much higher rate than if they were recruited through the hospital itself. The economics of this fall apart as soon as we put them under any scrutiny.

Some 70% of the public—or more, I believe—support the calling of the debate, and the reasons for that are clear. We have seen the worst squeeze in living standards for generations, the worst wage growth since the steam engine was created and the worst decade for productivity since the Napoleonic war. The damning statistics on wages and productivity point us towards the truth: we cannot cut our way to productivity and we cannot reduce workers’ rights and pay to increase productivity. We need to respect workers, give them decent standards of living and actually create decent places of work. We can do that, first and foremost, in our public sector.

Since the 1970s, the percentage of GDP taken as profits and not paid as wages has risen through the roof; the paradise papers showed examples of profits being extracted from our economy and the money vanishing. When we talk about what money we have to share around for our constituents—in their pay and in benefits—we are talking about a smaller and smaller amount every year.

I remind the House of where the Government started back in 2010. This is not a new problem, and the Government were warned about where we would get to. It was this Government who talked about strivers versus skivers. It was this Government who sought to pit public sector workers against private sector workers, telling them that they were against each other in the race for decent wages and decent living standards. It was this Government who sought to pit unionised workers against non-unionised workers.

We are getting towards the end of the race to the bottom that the Government have started us on.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dan Carden]

No, I will not. We are starting to realise that the race to the bottom is one that we all stand to lose. The sooner Government Members realise that, the better off our and their constituents will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. As the Member of Parliament for Glasgow South West, which the House of Commons Library informs me has a bigger percentage of public sector workers in employment than any other constituency in these islands, as a proud member of Unison and former activist and treasurer for the Glasgow city branch, and—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group, I very much welcome the debate. As someone who was a public sector worker for 25 years, I hope to bring stories of my experience in that field.

It has been an excellent debate, and I want to mention a number of contributions. The debate was led superbly by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who discussed the plight of public sector workers, the impact of the public sector pay cap on the economy, which I want to come to later, and the fact that all nations and regions of the United Kingdom are affected. She also rightly mentioned the physically taxing nature and environment of public sector work. She referred to binnies, and it may be of interest to her that I found, when doing my research, that refuse collectors have suffered a real-terms pay cut of £2,064 a year, which I believe is a disgrace.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) mentioned the impact in Wales and the devolved Administrations, which I agree with. The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), who is vice-chair of the PCS parliamentary group, mentioned quite rightly the PCS ballot and the complete dissatisfaction of civil servants in the UK. I hope to mention that too in my contribution. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), who is a former president of the trade union that I am a proud member of, mentioned the impact of the public sector pay cap on nursing. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), in a typical tour de force, talked about the impact on the teaching profession. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) mentioned the impact on nursing.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said that this will increase the gender pay gap. I agree with that point and hope to mention it. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) gave another tour de force, with very powerful examples of public sector workers dipping into their own pockets to help users of public services. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) talked about the impact on firefighters. The hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) quite rightly questioned whether the Government are comfortable with making people poorer. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) talked about the magic money tree, which I will come to. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), a Unison comrade, questioned the idea that the country cannot afford a pay rise. Again, I agree with that and will come to it.

The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said that workers’ debt levels are on the rise, which is certainly the case. The hon. Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) talked about the pressure on services. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), another Unison colleague who has replaced my good friend Dave Anderson, talked about recruitment and retention. That theme was picked up by the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda). Last, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) reminded us quite rightly that all of us have family and relatives who work in the public services.

That was in contrast to the lack of voices from the Government Benches, with one notable exception. I think we are all disappointed by that. They are obviously attending to affairs of state and constituency duties. We did not even hear the moderate voices of Conservatives from Scotland—a collection of individuals who have yet to realise that their hero, Alf Garnett, is in actual fact a parody.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Stephens]

I am more than happy to give way to Conservatives in a moment, but I want to develop this point. Cynics may believe that a political party that introduced in 1823 the Master and Servant Acts—legislation designed to repress working people and punish them for joining trade unions—would not be interested in issues affecting public sector workers, but I cannot believe that that would be the case.

[Luke Graham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will appreciate that it was also Conservatives who introduced some of the first health insurance schemes and comprehensive education schemes in the last century. My specific point is that the pay cap was not an ideological point by the Conservative party; it was due to financial constraint at the time. As he knows, the pay cap was devolved in Scotland for a great number of years, so the criticism that he is levelling against the Westminster Government today should also be applied to the Administration in Edinburgh, who have held that pay cap, even though they have the power and the money to change it.

[Chris Stephens]

If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the public sector pay cap was ideological, I really do fear for him and for his political analysis. Of course it was designed to be ideological. It was part of the cuts programme in the Budget. They kept boasting about the number—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is right. The facts speak for themselves.

I am reminded of the speech I made in the Chamber less than two weeks ago on the Budget, in which I said:

“The only difference between this Chancellor and the previous one is that of style, not substance. Where George Osborne could best be described as a tin of gloss, superficially painting over the cracks in our broken economy, the current Chancellor is the tin of matt, hoping to hide the worst lumps and bumps with repeated applications of more of the same. Either way, they are both the same shade of Tory austerity blue”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 1255.]

As a former treasurer of Glasgow city Unison, I know all too well that trade unions have a welfare fund, which is an important aspect of membership and the recruiting of public sector workers. That branch’s accounts show that from 2010 to 2015, there was a year-on-year increase in spending of that welfare fund. Is that because the pay did not quite match the increases in food, housing and fuel costs? Of course it is.

Today, the average household has lost £7.74 per week due to higher prices for goods, including bread, milk and cheese. The Trussell Trust statistics tell us that in 2010, it delivered 61,400 emergency food parcels to hungry people. Today’s figure, which the Trussell Trust released last month, is 1,182,594 food parcels. All the evidence suggests that many of those going to food banks are, in actual fact, public sector workers.

Despite all the hints, the Budget failed to lift the public sector pay cap. With inflation at a five-year high of 3%, the value of public sector wages has collapsed. In 2017, the civil service people survey, referred to by the hon. Member for North Tyneside, has shown that satisfaction with pay and conditions has fallen and now stands at 30%.

The Government’s solution is to park the issue with pay review bodies. The problem with that approach is that 55% of public sector workers in the UK are not covered by a pay review body. They include jobcentre workers, who administer our social security and pensions system; those who staff our borders, working in immigration and asylum services; civilians in the Ministry of Defence, providing equipment and support to our armed services; and, of course, workers in the national health service and local government.

In November 2015, I secured an Adjournment debate to demonstrate the low pay in the Department for Work and Pensions. Over 40% of its employees were receiving tax credits. As a result of that debate, the Government had no option but to negotiate with the PCS a wage rise for staff in that Department.

Of course, there is the Treasury pay remit, which covers about 400,000 workers. This is the so-called delegated pay system—a notional arrangement whereby Departments and agencies are individual employers responsible for negotiating pay and conditions. Although the remit is “guidance” for civil service departmental employers and other bargaining units, it does set a pay cap framework.

That was not always the case. In fact, national pay bargaining was first introduced in the civil service in 1919, and that position held for more than 70 years until the then Conservative Government, over a period between 1994 and 1996, broke it up and delegated responsibility to individual departmental employers. The reality is not only that it is incredibly wasteful and time consuming to hold hundreds of sets of negotiations about an issue decided and controlled centrally, but that that has led to inequalities whereby staff at similar grades across Departments, and even across agencies within the same sponsor Department, are paid vastly different salaries.

A real danger of the Government’s current approach is that it will increase the gender pay gap, because it is clear that so far the Government have announced the ending of the pay cap for those services that are male dominated, and those Departments that are female dominated do not yet see evidence that the public sector pay cap will be lifted. That is a very dangerous route for the Government to go down.

[Luke Graham]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Stephens]

I am not your friend, but I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

I thought we got on so well! I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time. I supported the pay cap review, both in London and in Edinburgh, as did many Government Members, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has announced the lifting of the pay cap to allow flexibility. My question to the hon. Gentleman—perhaps he is coming to this—is: what should the percentage actually be, and can he give us a trailer of what will be announced in the forthcoming Budget at Holyrood?

[Chris Stephens]

The last point is well above my pay grade, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman. It is not for me to determine what the percentage is. That should be negotiated. But the Government should not impose a cap of 1% and then say to individuals, “It’s either that or hit the cobblestones and take industrial action,” particularly given that they passed anti-trade union legislation—the Trade Union Act 2016—making industrial action even more difficult on a national scale.

There is a clear and sustained argument about the clear economic benefits of lifting the public sector pay cap. There would be a positive stimulus in the economy through increased household consumer spending. That would be likely to increase GDP and tax receipts, reducing the overall cost to Government still further. Estimates show that the effect of increased public sector pay would be similar to that of a decrease in income tax. The findings by the TUC and the Institute for Public Policy Research show that the significant portion of funding required to lift the public sector pay cap would in fact be returned to the Treasury almost immediately in the form of higher tax receipts and lower welfare payments. The initial cost per year in 2019-20 of uprating public sector pay in line with the consumer prices index for two years would be £5.8 billion compared with the cost had the cap remained in place. However, that drops to £3.55 billion once higher receipts from income tax and national insurance and lower welfare payments for means-tested benefits are taken into account.

It will be left to the devolved Administrations to take a different path. The Scottish Government have said that they will remove the 1% pay cap. This petition calls for the UK Government to fully fund a pay rise. I say again that it should not be left to a Department, a devolved Administration, a local authority or a health board to find the money from its own resources. Should the Government not look positively on this petition, I can guarantee the Minister that Scottish National party MPs will put pressure on the Government to ensure that they do that, and we will continue to campaign for public sector workers, not just in Scotland but across these islands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend, as ever, has hit the nail right on the head. It is all talk and no action.

[Luke Graham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, he is being too friendly this afternoon. He asks for a Conservative, well there is one stood right here who, along with many Scottish colleagues, supported the pay cap reviews in London and in Edinburgh. It was announced in the Budget that, certainly from a UK Government perspective, according to the pay boards, they will have the flexibility to lift those pay caps. If they want the evidence, we are right here.

[Peter Dowd]

The voice of the lonely. That is what I would say: the voice of the lonely.

The IPPR and Unison have both provided research that demonstrates that lifting the cap would bring higher tax receipts and lower welfare payments. That has been suggested and indicated by other Members, and they are absolutely right. It would bring real money into the economy. We know that. Why do the Tories not accept it? Let me be clear, on cutting public sector pay, the Chancellor virtually stands alone. Ten years on from the international banking crisis, countries that instituted public sector pay freezes or pay cuts have all reversed them, including the likes of Germany and the United States. Once again, the Conservatives are left behind.

In their written response to the petitioners who triggered this debate, the Government said:

“We still need to deal with our country’s debts…to enable us to invest in our public services.”

They are not even doing that. Hon. Members should look at the Red Book: that is not being delivered. Again, they are the all talk, no action Government. They have not only borrowed more money than any other Government before, but have failed to invest in our public services and those who work in them. We all know it. The country will not run a surplus until 2030—batted off again—at the earliest, a full 15 years after the former Chancellor said the deficit would be eradicated.

So where are we? We cannot afford any rise for our public sector workers but, as has been alluded to, we can afford to relax the bank levy to the tune of the best part of £2 billion a year by 2022. We can also afford to relax corporation tax and other taxes for corporations worth the best part of £70 billion over the next five years. As has also been alluded to, we can afford to pay £3 billion for a botched EU Brexit that should have been sorted out months ago. That has cost the country because of the useless way the Government have dealt with it. We can afford, as we have found in the last two or three days, to pay out £2 billion to east coast line companies. We can afford that; just pick that up, it is no problem at all. We can afford to sell off the Royal Bank of Scotland at a loss of billions upon billions of pounds. The taxpayer picked up the bill for that, and it is the bank putting straight back into the hands of those who caused the problem in the first place. That is the reality, and as we come to the end of another miserable, cold, dark year under the Tories, we cannot afford to pay our public sector workers a decent wage.

I simply say, as I have said time after time and will continue to say: the sooner this Government get their marching orders, the better for all of us. I suspect the Government are in that position themselves, but I am not interested in the Government: I am interested in public sector workers.

Budget Resolutions

Luke Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

No, I will not, because this is the third party speech and the practice is that it is not to be intervened on.

The change in GDP that we will see in the OBR book is a cut to GDP of 2.7%—that is what this Government are presiding over. It is a threat to the wages, living standards and job prospects of people up and down the United Kingdom. This Government should be ashamed of themselves. When we look at the rhetoric of the Budget speech—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing, but we see a fiscal loosening in this Budget of 0.1%. That does not take into account the reality of the risks the people of the UK face.

Let me welcome the removal of VAT on our police and fire services, but remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, together with his friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, he was given the opportunity to support an SNP amendment to the Finance Bill in 2015 that would have removed VAT from Scotland—[Interruption.] I can hear the remarks that are coming from those on the Conservative Benches, but I remind them that the Conservative manifesto supported the establishment of Police Scotland. It was the vindictiveness and nastiness of the Tory Government that imposed VAT on Scotland, which has ripped £140 million out of our frontline services. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland were given the opportunity in the 2015 Finance Bill to act they failed. It is a disgrace that we have had £140 million taken out of frontline spending—

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification as to whether we are allowed to try to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—whether he takes an intervention or not is another matter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The rules are that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition are not to be intervened on, but the courtesies go to the leader of the SNP here. He may wish not to give way, and that is his choice. What I suggest—[Interruption.] Order. He has made it clear that he wants the same courtesies that have been established for others, in which case he will not be giving way. So it will save us a lot of time if people do not keep standing.

Public Country-by-country Reporting

Luke Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mrs Main, to serve under your chairmanship—sorry, chairship. Or is stewardship the right phrase? Apologies.

I will try to keep my comments brief. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for securing this debate. As an accountant—I refer people to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests––I am genuinely delighted to speak in this debate. In the light of the Paradise papers, it has become increasingly clear that this issue needs to be addressed. Currently, multinational enterprises are not required to publish the details about the amount of tax they pay in each country that they have operations in, as hon. Members have already mentioned.

As we have heard, the Government have a strong record of closing tax gaps, increasing some of the tax revenue and bringing down the tax gap in our country. Proposals put forward in 2016 introduced provisions requiring multinationals to provide Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with an annual country-by-country report, showing how much revenue and profit they earn, how much corporate income tax they pay, and their total employment, capital, retained earnings and tangible assets. That will help HMRC, but that information will not be made public, which will not promote the trust and transparency that other hon. Members have called for.

The debate has therefore shifted, quite rightly, to whether we introduce the public country-by-country reports, and whether we should do so unilaterally or on a multilateral basis. Although acting unilaterally would obviously give us some thought leadership, it could put us at a competitive disadvantage, especially going into the era of uncertainty over Brexit movements.

The UK Government have a strong record of leading tax reporting and combatting tax evasion efforts internationally. They have established quite a comprehensive and effective model, and they initiated some of the country-by-country reporting during Britain’s G8 presidency in 2013. The UK was also the first country to commit to implementing the OECD model for country-by-country reporting, with the provisions in the Finance Act 2016, which have already been referred to.

This is not just a British problem. I am sure that hon. Members have read plenty of reports from our cousins in the United States, where it is estimated that $1 trillion in commercial returns is being held overseas rather than being repatriated to America. That money could go towards restoring half the infrastructure across the entire United States, so there are real gains for countries if they sign up and help with some of the thought leadership on this topic.

This is a timely debate, because in our increasingly connected world—both physically and digitally—transparency becomes more and more important. It is important to my constituents, including business owners, in ensuring real trust in who they are doing business with and how they are doing business, not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere around the world.

In a previous life, I had the pleasure to work with His Royal Highness the Prince’s Accounting for Sustainability Project, which champions increased reporting requirements, mostly on environmental and social measures. It also champions examples of best practice internationally, to ensure that companies are reporting in the most transparent way and to the highest standards of international practice. Its sister organisation, the International Integrated Reporting Council, has led the way in setting international standards and bringing companies, Governments and other public bodies together to champion and share best practice and to show some of the real returns for investors and customers alike.

As we have seen our economy change, intangibles have become increasingly valuable to companies and investors. I was working on a project just two years ago, and it was estimated that around 80% of the value of the Standard & Poor’s 500 was being held as intangibles rather than as tangible assets. When we start to consider the consequence of these intangibles, it becomes increasingly important that around the world companies need to be as transparent as possible, not only about the physical capital they hold but about their human and social capital.

Clearly, the best approach is to continue pursuing this as an international goal. The Government are right to seek international support—I will support my hon. Friends whenever I can to gain that support—to ensure a comprehensive and effective model for public country-by-country reporting. To that end, I was pleased to note that the European Commission has proposed public country-by-country reporting at EU level, which I know the Government support, and I hope that, regardless of the outcome of Brexit, we will continue to work together to achieve that with the EU and other international organisations worldwide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), my trusty co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption, on securing this highly relevant and timely debate, given that it is Budget day. I also congratulate him on his thoughtful opening speech.

With last year’s Panama papers and then the Paradise papers the other week, there is a sense that systems of international finance and taxation seem to be working for the benefit of individuals with access to vast wealth and an army of lawyers, rather than—to coin a phrase—for the many, not the few. We are in the grip of a culture of secrecy and silence in our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, enabling tax avoidance and evasion on an industrial scale. It looks suspiciously like there is one rule for the super-rich and another for the rest of us.

Lord Sugar has blamed “bad advice” for the fact that these sitcom celebrities, sports stars, pop stars, the Duchy of Lancaster and all those other people have been caught up in the latest whirlwind. Lord Sugar said that tax avoidance is un-British and that we are blessed to be

“in a country that has a police force, a National Health Service, an army…and all the good things we get here.”

To the delight of Transparency International, Christian Aid and Global Witness, we were promised Government action by David Cameron in the flurry of the 2016 anti-corruption summit, but the Government seem to have fallen disappointingly short. Country-by-country reporting, which we are addressing in particular today, is an issue that I first came across as a candidate in 2015. Before I was elected, I experienced my first mass email petition from potential constituents. It was called, “What will you do to crack down on tax dodging?” I assured them I would insist that multinational companies are required to publish details of the amounts of tax they pay in their countries of operation.

As soon as I was elected, I was happy to back the “show us the money” amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). When the Criminal Finances Bill came before the House, I spoke from the Opposition Front Bench on the need for public registers of beneficial ownership. Then we had the snap election and the legislative provisions were swirled into the vortex of wash-up. For this Government, “could do better” is perhaps an understatement. In 2012, David Cameron declared that organisations investing in complicated schemes

“to just minimise their tax rates is not morally acceptable. Some of these schemes…are quite frankly morally wrong.”

Even if he acted within the letter of the law, the behaviour of Bono of U2 was close to the edge.

Financial secrecy feeds into legal and illegal approaches to not paying a fair share. Last year the Conservative Government said that all countries needed to reach a gold standard of public registers of beneficial ownership, yet there has been a palpable rowing back. Now the Foreign Office only expects UK tax havens to go down that road when it becomes a global standard. Montserrat has already committed to put in place a public register. We have a duty to justify our claims to be a global leader on transparency and anti-corruption by facilitating that, rather than ducking the challenge in a dereliction of duty. The tax abuse in the Paradise papers and the corruption in the Panama papers are two sides of the same coin of financial secrecy. In both cases the Government’s stated intentions are undermined by their willingness to tolerate offshore financial secrecy.

The Cameron Government at least made the right noises. I have to see the detail of what was announced in the Budget statement, but I am cheered by the idea of extending offshore time limits. Until now, however, the Prime Minister—who is often responding to events rather than mastering them, being in office but not in power, and all that stuff—seems to have had a comparatively lackadaisical attitude.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?