Finance (No. 2) Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Under this Government, child poverty has fallen, and pensioner poverty is at a lower level than it has ever been. Only today, we have seen numbers showing that there are 600,000 fewer workless households than there were in 2010. If we wish to deal with poverty, and we certainly do, the best way is to have a job-creating, growing economy, and that is precisely what the long-term economic plan is delivering.

To be fair to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), he says that he would cut VAT, but I am not hearing that from Labour Front Benchers. I must remind Labour Members that, with a handful of exceptions, none of them voted against the increase in VAT in 2010. I note that one of the handful of exceptions is sitting on the Opposition Benches, but Labour Members did not vote against it.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

On the subject of deficit reduction, does my hon. Friend recall a report from the IFS a little while ago that said that Labour’s plans would have resulted in about £200 billion more borrowing if the Labour Government had continued, given the change in circumstances? Does that not show that there is a massive black hole at the heart of Labour Members’ current plans that would be made worse by the out-of-the-blue, panicky pledges on tax that they are suddenly making on the hoof on the news after pressure at today’s Prime Minister’s questions?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes a good point that is very relevant to the debate we are having about VAT.

The three main parties in this House have agreed that we will deliver a cyclical current budget surplus by 2017-18; that is what the charter of fiscal responsibility states. The vast majority of Labour Members trooped through the Lobby to support that measure. Independent analysis, as well as the Treasury’s analysis, confirmed that that requires some £30 billion-worth of fiscal adjustments. From my party’s point of view, that would be made up of £13 billion from departmental spending, £12 billion from welfare spending, and £5 billion from anti-tax evasion and tax avoidance measures.

The Liberal Democrats have set out how they will get their £30 billion. Their plan has a different balance and make-up from the Conservative plan, but they have set it out. The Labour party has not set out how it will reach that £30 billion. If Labour is not going to cut welfare in the way the Conservatives are, and if it is not going to cut departmental spending as we are—as far as I can see, that, after all, is the heart of Labour’s election campaign—more money must come from tax. That is why the question of who will raise taxes and what taxes will be raised is much more acute for Labour Members. They have questions to answer. There is a gap in their public finance plans, whereas we have set out plans that do not require us to put up taxes on hard-working people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman where the credibility gap is. Labour Members effectively voted for a £30 billion target. They then denied it. They now will not indicate what adjustments they will undertake in 2016-17 and 2017-18. They have not said how they will reduce departmental spending, or how, or whether, they will reduce welfare spending. They have not said how much they will raise from tax. If they will not give us answers to those questions, we can only assume that it is because they intend to tax and borrow more. If they will not provide clarity on that, we will make that point time and again.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Speaking of Labour’s spending and tax commitments, how many times over have Labour Members spent the bank bonus tax? Is it 10 times, or more? I have lost count.

[Mr Gauke]

I thought it was 11 but I could be wrong. It may be 12 by now—who knows?—because that money may be being used to pay for Labour’s tuition fees policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what people across the country will be concerned about. The Conservative party has form, about which I will go into in detail during my speech. History proves that what the Prime Minister said at Question Time today should not be believed, because it has all been said before and VAT has always gone up.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I give way to the rover from Dover.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Would the hon. Lady rule out a Labour Government keeping VAT at the same level, or would they reduce it? The hon. Lady ought to tell the Committee.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will come on to what we announced yesterday, but we are not going to raise VAT. That is as clear as it gets, and the hon. Gentleman knows that.

I remind the Committee that VAT is the tax that hits everyone, with the same rate paid by the pensioner as by the millionaire. For many pensioners and those on the lowest incomes, it is the biggest tax that they pay. It is also the tax that hits people every single day, whether they are buying a cup of coffee or filling up the family car. Everybody does that every single day. The Government’s decision to raise the standard rate of VAT has, without doubt, hit the living standards of millions of people. According to the Treasury’s own figures, it has cost families an average of £1,800 over the past four years. That is no small trifling sum of money, even if it is averaged over four years.

As I heard from constituents across Birmingham when I was there with the shadow Chancellor yesterday, £1,800 has had a huge impact on their ability to make ends meet and to do the basic things in life—putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their families’ heads, desperately hoping they will not have to go to a food bank, even though they have a job, just to put food in the bellies of their children. That £1,800 is a significant sum of money and, coupled with the other facts of this Government’s record, such as wages being down by an average of £1,600 a year and the combined impact of tax and benefit changes, families are on average more than £1,000 a year worse off.

--- Later in debate ---

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister were in opposition, they were happy to talk up the fact that nobody believes an unfunded tax cut and they were absolutely right. Nobody believes them now. If they are going to deliver that we should at least hear how they will start paying for it. If they want to see off the charge that VAT will go up under the Tories if they win the next general election, regardless of what the Prime Minister said in questions today, they need to start answering some of the questions about the unfunded tax cuts that they have already promised.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Given that both parties have ruled out an increase in VAT and that the hon. Lady will not commit to a reduction in VAT, it is hard to understand Labour’s position. This debate is a theatre of the absurd.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman and we spend much time debating Finance Bills, but I must say to him as gently as I can that that was an absurd intervention. We have made a clear commitment to the British people on what will happen to VAT on our watch. It will not go up. We know that it will go up if his party wins the next general election. There are no two ways about it. It does not matter what the Prime Minister has said and it does not matter what the hon. Gentleman says now. We know that because of his party’s record and form on VAT. I shall give a lengthy exposition of that history and form very shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

According to work by the Treasury, an additional 2.5% rise in VAT would cost a family with children an average of £450 a year and a pensioner couple £275 a year. From what they have shown us in government, it is not Tory party policy to ask those most able to contribute more to do so; in fact, it is their policy to give a tax cut to those earning more than £150,000 a year.

[Charlie Elphicke]

This debate seems to be based on a false premise. The Government have been clear that a rise in VAT is not necessary to balance the books because we do not have a hole in our plans for public finances. The Labour party does have a black hole and it cannot be trusted on anything it says about the jobs tax.

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me I will answer that by posing a simple question back to him, and then I will give way so that he can answer it. Where will the £12 billion of cuts to welfare come from? How will the £5 billion for tax avoidance be found? If he can answer those questions he will go further than those on his Front Bench have managed to do while making those promises. Perhaps he can shed some light on the issue for the British public.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The Government have been clear in setting out their plans in the Red Book, and they have been audited, considered and reviewed by the Office for Budget Responsibility. What are not clear are the plans of the Opposition, although it is increasingly clear that there is a black hole in those plans and that they consistently make it up as they go along. I suggest to the hon. Lady that Labour’s so-called pledge on the jobs tax cannot be believed at all.

[Shabana Mahmood]

That was not even a valiant attempt to try to answer my questions, but the hon. Gentleman is not on the Front Bench and I suppose I am being a little uncharitable in suggesting that he cannot answer a question that his own Chancellor is not prepared to answer either.

We have numbers of £12 billion, £13 billion and £5 billion from the Chancellor, yet with all the might of the Treasury behind him and lots of officials to do the numbers we have no detail on how those figures will be found. The Government spent a whole Parliament trying to talk up their record on tax avoidance and they are saying that they will get £5 billion in the next Parliament, yet there is no detail on how those amounts will be made up and no guarantee that they will be delivered. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot answer those questions if those on the Government Front Bench will not either.

The Conservative party’s plans for what they would like to do if elected in a few weeks’ time are extreme and go much further than deficit reduction. They are trying to deliver a surplus of £7 billion. That had to be changed from the previous desire to get a surplus of £23 billion, because the Government got spooked by recognition across the country of what that would mean for the size of the state. They have now come down to £7 billion, which still means that they have to go further and faster in the early part of the next Parliament than they have in the previous five years.

Those choices have to be paid for. Given that some budgets are protected and that commitments to international development and aid spending will not change, and given the scale of what the Conservative party wants to achieve with the country’s finances, it is physically not possible to do such things without putting the NHS at risk of cuts or potentially of charging, or without raising VAT. That is the charge being made—it is not just about the history and the record. The hon. Gentleman could have resiled from the Conservative party’s record, but he chose not to do so. The combination of the Conservative party’s history on VAT and its figures for the next Parliament tells us that if it is elected a VAT rise is coming. There can be no doubt about it, given the combination of those two factors.

The hon. Gentleman attacked our plans and commitments, but for every commitment that involves raising revenue, we have highlighted where that revenue will come from and we have made the figures public. It was the Labour party that called for the OBR to conduct an independent audit of all parties’ manifesto commitments. We could have avoided this debate if we had allowed the OBR to do so. I was very happy to submit my party’s plans to an independent audit. I wonder why the Government chose not to do so. Perhaps they had something to hide. Perhaps they did not want to be robbed of the ability to have a “tax bombshell”-type poster. The needs of the Conservative party’s election marketing material should not have trumped the responsible thing to do: to allow the OBR independently to audit all parties’ manifesto commitments. I was very happy for that to happen.

The bankers bonus tax would pay for one policy and one policy alone: the compulsory youth jobs guarantee. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman thinks the stubbornly high rate of youth unemployment is a laughing matter, he is mistaken. The Conservatives stole a few of our policies in last week’s Budget. Rather than laughing off the idea of the bankers bonus tax, I would have been happy for them to have stolen that policy, as it would have delivered jobs for the young people in my constituency who could find themselves on the jobs scrap-heap for many years to come. The Conservatives should have adopted it; it would have made a real and practical difference.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes another excellent point. This year, the proportion of income tax paid by the highest earning 1% will be above 27%, higher than for any year under the previous Government. I dare say that we will debate that in a little more detail later this afternoon. On this Government’s record in ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders make the biggest contribution, the facts are very clear: they are doing so under us. A whole host of measures that we have taken, not least in areas of tax avoidance, have ensured that we are getting in that money.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on the work that the Government have done to tackle tax avoidance. What is being done to throw the book at the promoters of tax avoidance schemes and people who continually try their luck by entering such schemes?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend—given his background, he is an expert in tax matters—has been a consistently strong advocate of taking tough action in this area. I can certainly reassure him that one of our very important strands of work has been to take on the promoters of tax avoidance schemes. Indeed, we are bringing in measures to place greater burdens on them to disclose the position they are in, as well as greater surveillance and supervision of them. During this Parliament, we have seen a dramatic fall in the number of tax avoidance schemes being promoted, which is very good news. There has been a real change in the climate, driven not least by the action that the Government have taken. I believe that we have a very proud record in dealing with tax avoidance and the causes of tax avoidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend does not want to revisit old debates, but I tempted to give a response that I suspect I have given him before. The general anti-abuse rule is a big step forward, and it was absolutely right that this Government introduced it. Other Governments had considered it but felt that it was not the right thing to do. However, it is there to complement the existing measures, and we will want to see how the GAAR works over time rather than rush to judgment. I do not believe that a future Conservative Government would want to risk opening up new loopholes because of uncertainty about exactly how the GAAR applies. It is of course an anti-abuse rule and sets a reasonably high bar for behaviour covered by it, and I suspect my hon. Friend agrees that that is right because of its broad nature. We will have to wait and see before I make any commitment to repealing various targeted anti-avoidance rules.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I give way to another Member who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), is a former member of the tax profession.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. May I turn to the provisions on oil taxation and the revenues from oil, given what has happened to the oil price? Does he have any idea of how big a black hole would be driven into the finances of an independent Scotland were there to be another referendum campaign fought by the losers from last time?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that oil revenues are something like a 10th of what the Scottish National party predicted, but I will happily stand corrected if I am wrong. The fact is that a united kingdom is better able to absorb volatility in the oil price than an independent Scotland would ever be. Given what has happened to the oil price, it is clearly to the benefit of Scotland that those calling for independence were roundly defeated last year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I do accept that, and it is good that we have had discussions through the usual channels, treating the Finance Bill this year more in what is known as the “wash-up” procedure rather than our normal less-constrained procedures. Nevertheless, I think we should pause and dwell on the fact that in a fixed-term Parliament the date of the final Budget may have consequences downstream for the legislation that is spat out at the other end. Perhaps we should consider allowing a little more time between the final Budget and the end of the Parliament—obviously a Labour Government will be in power for the next five years, so this may be quoted back at me in five years’ time—so that we have a more considered approach.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Is it a Labour party manifesto commitment to have an early Budget in the last year of a Labour Government in a fixed-term Parliament scenario?

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman must wait for our manifesto in which we shall reveal all those details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

I welcome any money that goes towards mental health, and I think anybody suffering from a mental health issue would welcome that as well, but I have to say this to the hon. Gentleman: I am fed up, especially as a Welsh MP and a Welshman, at the way the Welsh NHS has been attacked by this Government. It is a shame because when the Government attack the NHS in Wales, they are attacking the nurses, the doctors, the cleaners, the porters—everybody who works so hard to provide the best possible health care to our patients.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate and powerful speech highlighting why it is such a travesty that he is not at the forefront of the Leader of the Opposition’s team, as he should have been. Does he join me in regretting the fact that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be planning a jobs tax were Labour to get elected at the general election?

[Chris Evans]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments, and I have to say that over the years that we have served together in this House he has always been courteous to me and I count him as one of my friends from the other side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

They need to pay lots more, not a bit more. Of course some of the very rich are paying more, but that is because they are getting richer and richer on massive pay awards. They are earning so much more than anyone else, and the situation is getting out of control

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

I will not give way to the rover from Dover, thank you very much. He is known as the Dover soul. [Laughter.] Obviously, that was the highlight of my speech.

Finally, I wish to comment on the rabbits that have been pulled out of the hat. Today, we were told, “Oh, there will be no VAT increases.” Is the Prime Minister going to commit himself to that in his five-year plan? A couple of days ago, we heard that another £46 billion was being spent on various railway connections in the north. There seems to be a desperate attempt to make things up on the hoof.

I do not necessarily disagree with this devolution of economic and service power to the north—to Manchester. We did that in Wales, but it was done on the back of an Act of Parliament and a referendum. In their haste to generate higher ratings at the polls, the Government are doing anything, including undermining the constitution and the economic balance and fragmenting the NHS in the process. Their recent track record, therefore, has not been impressive. The future looks bleak. I very much hope that we can focus on increasing growth. We should consider tuition fees, a cast-iron promise to stay in the EU, which is so important for inward investment, and procurement. The reality is that when it comes to procurement we should look at favouring, if we can, small British companies that pay British tax—corporation tax and income tax—rather than giving the work to foreign companies that do not pay our tax and do not contribute towards growth.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

I will finally give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way to the rover from Dover. I gently point out that the reason why we cannot show a preference towards our own businesses in matters of procurement is to do with the European Union, which he loves so much.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Believe it or not, that discussion is outside the scope of the Budget resolutions. But given that the hon. Gentleman had just acquired a nickname—although I will not be addressing him as such—I decided to allow him to intervene. Mr Davies, I should be grateful if you returned to the Finance Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. The Government’s support for small cider makers across the piece has helped to create a diverse and vibrant market in this area, and we will continue to study the Commission’s arguments carefully because we want to support this industry.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

8. What plans he has to introduce penalties for financial advisers who promote aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

This Government have been relentless in cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion. We have introduced a tougher monitoring regime and penalties for high-risk promoters of tax avoidance schemes, and the unprecedented common reporting standard will mean that by 2018 more than 90 countries will be exchanging information on offshore accounts automatically, helping Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to find and pursue offshore evaders successfully.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the Chief Secretary for that answer. Does he agree that more has been done on tax avoidance in the past five years than was done in the previous 13, so craven were the previous Government before big business and big tax avoidance? Will he welcome the Financial Secretary’s announcement yesterday of further action on tax avoidance-promoting schemes?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in both things that he says. The Financial Secretary’s announcement represented very important further progress, but if we look back over the past five years, we see that the relentlessness of our pursuit of measures to crack down on avoidance, be it the general anti-abuse rule in the tax system, the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime, the monitoring regime that we are putting in place or the measures to increase prosecutions for tax evasion, has made it clear that there is absolutely no tolerance for aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion in this country.

Future Government Spending

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I shall give way in a moment. What has been less well known is the devastatingly corrosive effect of stagnant wages, falling tax receipts and rising welfare costs on the health of our public finances. The social security bill is £25 billion more than planned at the outset of the Parliament. Tax credit costs have risen to subsidise the low-wage economy. Incidentally, my hon. Friends know from looking at the statistics last week that, in just one year, the number of zero-hours contracts in our society has grown by 20%.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I shall give way in a moment. The number of working people receiving housing benefit has gone up by two thirds since the last general election, tax receipts have been £68 billion lower than expected and national insurance contributions have been £27 billion lower than expected. That impact on the state and health of the public finances has been a direct result of the stagnant wages and suppressed living standards in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way in a moment.

I am afraid that Conservative Members are not driven by rationality when it comes to a strategy for dealing with the public finances. They are driven by dogma. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. They are on an ideological crusade to shrink public services as a percentage of national income. Their plan, when they stand up to talk about these things, is not about eliminating the deficit at all; it is beyond that. The guiding principle of the Conservative party is a desire for public services actively to decline year after year after year.

That is why so many Conservative Members have joined that fabled Conservative group, the Free Enterprise Group of Conservative MPs. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) is not in the Chamber, but he has famously called for massive reductions in public spending. The Economic Secretary, who will wind up the debate, is also a member of the Free Enterprise Group, as is her colleague the Exchequer Secretary and the hon. Members for Macclesfield (David Rutley), for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I am sure there are others, although perhaps of a lower ranking order within the Free Enterprise Group structure. [Interruption.] Well, I am not a member of the Free Enterprise Group of Conservative MPs and, with members like that, I am quite glad I am not.

That organisation reveals the true face of the Conservative agenda. It believes very much in shrinking the state and it is driven by that fundamental belief. It is highly dogmatic and has used the financial crisis as a pretext for reducing the level of public investment.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Free Enterprise Group. Does he stand by its manifesto?

[Charlie Elphicke]

Let us talk about Labour’s spending commitments. The shadow Minister has been going up and down the country making £20 billion-worth of unfunded spending commitments. Would they be paid for by more borrowing or more taxes?

[Chris Leslie]

That was a good try, but the hon. Gentleman knows very well that we do not have unfunded spending commitments. Our manifesto will be fully costed and fully funded. He does not need to take my word for it: we would be more than happy to let the OBR audit all of the proposals in our manifesto and to undertake to validate that they are, indeed, fully costed. I wonder if any Government Members would like to support the idea that all the political parties should have their manifestos fully costed by the OBR. Can I see a show of hands?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The statistics he uses are absolutely right. With regard to public spending on services—I will turn to the detail in a moment—we are talking about returning to the levels of 2002-03, before the previous Government lost control of public spending.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The tenor of the Opposition’s argument is that public spending ought to be higher. Given that they are disagreeing with our plans, should they not specify how much higher they would want it to be?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was struck that when it came to the substance of the shadow Chief Secretary’s speech, he rather rushed through that process. He tells us that he does not like our spending plans—I will come to the details of that in a few moments—but he does not tell us how much extra he would spend, or, if he is going to spend extra, how he is going to pay for it. Will it be through higher taxes or through more borrowing? We did not get any indication.

Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

Having sat on the Bill Committee for that piece of legislation, I remember well the considerable discussion that there was. If the hon. Gentleman has read our paper on banking reform, he will know that we support the reference to the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that we get new challenger banks in the system. That will be an important feature of our reforms in government.

Our programme of reform, as stated in our recent paper on banking, is designed to undo the reputational damage that has been inflicted by the financial crisis and the subsequent scandals. Our approach will help to restore the trust and confidence of savers, businesses and investors, and to ensure that fair dealing, integrity, prudence and probity are once again the pillars on which Britain’s banks are founded. In a global industry, an international reputation for good practice can only be a competitive advantage.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady believe that the tripartite system, which was brought in by the previous Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor, was one reason why our banking system was left so much more vulnerable in the difficult time that we had? Does she accept that the Labour party should take responsibility for that?

[Cathy Jamieson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we did have a global financial crisis. The Labour party has accepted that perhaps the regulation could and should have been tighter; we have said that on numerous occasions. I was not in this place at the time of the financial crisis, but I do not recall many on the Conservative Benches making the case for tougher regulation. Indeed, the opposite is true; they were actually looking for light-touch regulation. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but perhaps he should look at his own party’s record on this matter as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. The shadow Chancellor is not here, but neither is the Chancellor, so I am not sure what point she was trying to make in that regard. I recognise that a significant amount of money has gone to support valuable organisations such as the one she mentioned, but I hope that she was in no way suggesting that the banks should not be paying attention to their current ways of operating. We must ensure that we never again have a situation in which those fines are necessary, so hopefully things will change.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady confirm that the forex and LIBOR scandals took place before this Government were elected, and that it is this Government’s regulatory regime that has taken action to deal with them? Does she also agree that bonuses tripled in four years under her Government, and that under this Government they are a fifth of what they were? Much progress has been made, and she ought to give the Government credit for the work they have done.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will always give credit where it is due, but we also have to look at what has happened on this Government’s watch. As the hon. Gentleman knows, what we have seen with HSBC over the past few weeks shows that it can take a considerable time for some of those issues to come to light and be dealt with. The important point is to have a regulatory environment in place that allows those issues to be dealt with quickly, rather than just put to one side. We also need a change in culture to ensure that those things do not happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No, I want to finish this point.

As I said, it seemed that the scenario proposed was still fairly generous, but it was obviously not generous enough for the Chancellor, who decided to take legal action. The quest ended in failure after he meekly admitted defeat at the hands of the EU’s lawyers, but not before he had wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money in legal fees. Let us remember that this Chancellor will not devote himself to ensuring that tax avoiders and evaders are brought to book, when the first thing that he does is to challenge something of that sort, but he will devote himself to defending the right of bankers to receive high bonuses, while spending taxpayers’ money as he does so.

The Chancellor has been a diligent defender of bankers on the home front, too. Last year he had to be pressurised by Labour and others into refusing to give taxpayer-owned RBS the shareholder permission it needed to breach the cap and to pay bonuses of 200% of salary, and he still has serious questions to answer on HSBC. Over recent weeks, he has done his best not to answer them and has sent his Treasury Ministers out to do the talking for him. On Monday, he finally put in an appearance, yet he did not have any answers at all, so we need to keep asking the same questions. Did he discuss allegations of tax evasion at HSBC with Lord Green before Lord Green was made a Tory Minister; why has only one person been prosecuted out of 1,100 names; and why has he signed a deal with Switzerland that could prevent HMRC from getting its hands on similar information in future? He has been Chancellor for nearly five years and this is his responsibility. He needs to start taking his responsibilities seriously. If he does not, people are going to draw their own conclusions.

Let me move on to Labour’s reforms. It has been clear since this Government took office that they do not have the stomach for the serious reforms that we need. As our motion explains, a Labour Government will do things very differently. Our starting point, as I outlined, will be trust and fairness. We believe that banks should serve the needs of their customers and the economy, and that bonuses should be a reward for exceptional performance, not a compensation for failure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend not think that the last intervention is reminiscent of arsonists throwing rocks at the firefighters who have worked so hard to put out the fire the arsonists started?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is quite right. It is extraordinary that Labour Members have the cheek to come to the House and suggest that Conservative Members are somehow responsible.

I want to draw to the House’s attention the very prescient quote from the former Prime Minister when, representing the previous Government, he addressed the City in his Mansion House speech in 2002:

“What you as the City of London have done for financial services, we as a Government aim to do for the economy as a whole.”

And didn’t they just? It is absolutely extraordinary that under the “intensely relaxed” Labour Administration, bankers were rewarded for taking excessive risk, and if they failed, were allowed to get away with it—heads they win, tails the taxpayer loses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

The hon. Gentleman cites figures that demonstrate that in the last month—[Interruption.] Well, I will give him figures from the Office for National Statistics. In the past month, unemployment in my constituency rose by nearly 50 people. He does not cite the International Labour Organisation figures. If he genuinely believes that unemployment of 2,500 people in my constituency should be tolerated by any Government, he misjudges not just the attitude of my constituents, but the good sense of the British people.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that welfare reforms, the long-term economic plan, and the jobs revolution that we have seen have been great at getting people back into work so that they can fulfil and achieve their potential? Does he not welcome that?

[Mr Bain]

I welcome any reduction in unemployment, but our communities have a severe problem with long-term unemployment that this Government’s employment policies are simply not reaching.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), as I did last week. I hope that there will also be sufficient time to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) to follow me. I shall therefore try to ensure that my remarks are more to the point than they might otherwise have been.

I have always been a strong believer in having diversity and competition in the banking system, and I share the concern expressed by many that we have an oligopoly in our system. That is not healthy; there is not enough choice or competition. We need more competition, and I personally would be quite radical and ensure that the banks were separated up to a greater extent than they are today. It is also a concern that the establishment of the banking system in this country has meant that the banks are too big to fail. We could cure that by having depositor preference, because it would then be a matter for the bondholders, who would be much more interested in ensuring that the banks behaved and did not overpay bonuses.

What will not work is Members of this House pontificating about bonuses and what the bonus levels should be; waving a magic wand and saying that they should be this, that and the other; and trying to micro-manage banking business from afar. What makes it even worse is the way the previous Government carried on and the shameless hypocrisy of the Labour party that we have heard today. Let us not forget that the forex and LIBOR scandals happened under the previous Labour Government. Our Government have sorted out the regulatory system and have been cleaning up the mess. Under the previous Government bonuses tripled in four years and £66 billion of bonuses were paid out. The Labour party wishes to forget that. Fred Goodwin became Sir Frederick Goodwin then, and honours, baubles, bonuses and bag slaps were scattered around happily in those days. Labour now wishes to forget that. Under our Government bonuses are now a fifth of what they were then.

[Chris Evans]

Does the hon. Gentleman think the Conservative party is being wise after the event? Was it not the Conservative leader, the current Prime Minister, who argued in 2007 for less red tape and less regulation for the banking industry?

[Charlie Elphicke]

The issue is not the extent of regulation, but the format of regulation and the fact that the previous Government took the Bank of England out of the picture. The one organisation that understands the prudential nature of risk management was pushed to one side. That, together with the failure to police risk, was at the heart of what went wrong with our banking system, so I completely reject the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The Opposition say, “Let’s have a bankers’ bonus tax, so we can raise some money.” Yet again, we have heard that the Opposition want to spend it, this time on

“a guaranteed paid starter job for young people who have been out of work for over a year”.

That is what they say today but that is the 12th time over that they have spent it; I hate to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who thought it was only the 10th time and had lost count. That is understandable, because previously the Opposition have spent this on: the youth jobs guarantee; reversing the VAT increase; more capital spending; reversing the child benefit savings; reversing tax credit savings; more money for the regional growth fund; cutting the deficit; turning empty shops into community centres; spending more on public services; building 25,000 new houses; and free child care. Now it is being spent on starter jobs for young people, but perhaps next week it might be spent on houses again—who knows? It just depends on the thing of the moment, does it not? That underlines the ludicrousness of the Opposition’s position: they simply cannot add up and cannot spend their various banking bonus tax ideas in any competent way at all.

Leaving that aside, the permanent bank levy introduced by this Government is expected to raise £2.9 billion in 2015-16 and then £2.8 billion each year thereafter. That is more than was raised by the one-off bonus tax introduced by the previous Government. I suspect what will happen is that the Labour party will end up with its madcap plans raising less money and the party then being in a quandary as to where to spend it, because it has committed it on multiple occasions. That goes to the heart of the massive contradictions of Labour policy making.

The one thing I want to touch on is the idea that we should have the European Union decide on the levels of pay, bonuses or indeed anything in this country. Let me gently remind the Opposition of a couple of things. First, we are an independent nation. Secondly, we have an independent currency—we are not part of the eurozone. I do not understand why the Opposition think it is a good idea to have the European Union tell us how to manage our banking system. We are competent enough as a country—goodness knows, we have run our own affairs for the past 1,000 years—to decide how we should organise our banking system, and pay, bonuses and bonus taxes in our banking system, without needing help from the European Union.

[Helen Goodman]

I do not think every last detail of the running of these things should be handed over to the European Union, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, but the fact is that all the time we hear from the bankers that they will whizz off to Geneva—some of them do seem to be whizzing off there—to Paris or to Frankfurt. The purpose of having a European-wide approach on bonuses is to avoid exactly that kind of behaviour.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I hear what the hon. Lady is saying, but we are not in the euro. The only time that we would need some measure of control from the European Union is if we were in the euro. I simply do not accept the argument. Our objection to the European Union trying to tell us how to run our banking system and our bank bonuses is that we do not want to see pay rise and rocket in the banking system, which is what would happen—permanent fixed pay would rise. That is what we are most concerned about and why we have put up such resistance. There is also the principle that we can manage our own affairs in the City of London and in the financial services market, and we do not need any assistance from Brussels. I say shame on the Labour party for thinking that it is better to accept diktat from Brussels than decisions made in this Chamber.

Tax Avoidance

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and I have had a number of discussions on the airwaves about these issues, given that the Government have failed to field any Ministers to debate on those media channels. He has been doing a grand job of trying to defend the indefensible, but he is quite wrong. The central point in what we have discovered about HSBC this week is that the data with evidence of what had happened with tax avoidance and tax evasion were handed over by the French authorities to this Government in May 2010. That is the central point: that is the point at which we had evidence of wrongdoing that needed to be acted on, but that is not what happened.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady’s case that Ministers should have direct and executive responsibility and decision-making powers over how and when Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs should prosecute and collect taxes in specific taxpayers’ cases? Yes or no?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is completely missing the point about the debate we have been having this week about the HSBC affair. As I said in answer to the intervention from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), we know that data with evidence of tax avoidance and tax evasion were handed over to the Government in May 2010. That raises serious questions about due diligence and the appointment of Lord Green, the man in charge of the bank at the time, as a Minister in this Government only eight months after the data were handed over. Nobody on the Government Benches has answered the point about why that happened, and I hope that the Minister might try to answer some of those questions today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am going to make a little progress; then I shall give way again.

The famous Swiss deal between the UK and Swiss Governments in 2011 came into force on 1 January 2013. Ministers told us it would mean that British domiciles would start to be taxed on their banking deposits in Swiss institutions and raise £3.12 billion. We are now told that this has raised just a fraction of that amount—just £873 million, or a shortfall of £2.247 billion.

The Government have increased opportunities for tax avoidance. We know that the Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that the Government’s shares for rights scheme could open a tax avoidance loophole costing hundreds of millions of pounds. On page 52 of the policy costings section of the 2012 autumn statement, the OBR states:

“It is hard to predict how quickly the increased scope for tax planning will be exploited...this could be quantitatively significant as a quarter of the costing already arises from tax planning”.

I have to say to the Minister that it is one thing to have to close loopholes that have been an unforeseen consequence of legislative change, but quite another to make changes in the full knowledge that they will lead to a loss in the tax take.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Not so long ago, the Opposition opposed the Government measure on disguised remuneration, effectively a tax anti-avoidance measure taken by this Government in relation to hedge funds. Why did the Opposition do that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am surprised the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. If he were to read the debate on that measure in the Finance Bill Committee, he would know that concerns were raised about the effectiveness of the initial draft legislation put forward by the Government. In fact, the Government had to table 100 amendments to their own legislation at the last moment on Report before the Bill became law. At the time, the concern was that nobody even understood what the impact of those 100 amendments would be. That is why the Opposition took that view at that time. If all the issues relating to the 100 amendments were remedied, of course we would support the thrust of that measure, but that was a technical issue discussed in Committee. The hon. Gentleman does himself no favours by not knowing the detail, given how much of an interest he takes in Finance Bill Committees and how much I have enjoyed debating with him in those Committees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

There are real questions to be answered about how HMRC conducts its investigations and the rigour with which it pursues its different investigations. These take place, of course, within the context of legislation set by this Government, so ultimately these are matters for the Government. It is also the Government who decide on the amount of resources HMRC gets to do its job—an issue that I have discussed with the Minister on a number of occasions.

Fundamentally, the failure to act is symptomatic of the Government’s failure to tackle abuse within the tax system. That is why people are losing faith in it. Our motion sets out what we would do to restore that faith in the system. First, we have said that we will introduce penalties for those caught by the general anti-abuse rule, which is supposed to catch those who set up abusive schemes—the most egregious forms of abuse. However, there is currently no penalty scheme association with the so-called GAAR, which lacks teeth.

A Labour Government would introduce a tough penalty regime with fines of up to 100% of the value of the tax avoided. That will provide a tough and genuine deterrent to those who try to abuse the system and avoid paying their fair share of tax. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that the Government are now consulting on whether to have a penalties regime for the GAAR—but only after we announced our policy that we would have such a regime.

The truth is that when the GAAR was introduced, there was a huge amount of discussion and a review was carried out for the Government, with lots of academic work done on whether or not we should have a general anti-abuse rule in this country. The Government could and should have introduced penalties immediately. Where they have failed to act, we will act.

Secondly, the quoted eurobond exemption is used legitimately by many companies to raise finance on the international bond market, but it is also abused by some companies to shift profits out of the UK into tax havens, and so reduce the amount of corporation tax they pay. HMRC itself identified the problem, but the Government failed to act. Again, where they failed to act, we will act.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not give way; I want to make some progress. Thirdly, we have had much discussion relating to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

At the risk of repeating our previous debate about the quoted eurobond exemption, I said at the time that I was fearful that the Minister was patronising me. He assured me then that he was not, and I take that point on board again. I have not taken the Minister up on his offer of a meeting and I have no intention of doing so. The HMRC’s proposal for closing down the exemption on which the Treasury consulted involved instances in which there was no regular or substantial trading of the bonds in question.

We all accept that there is limited liquidity for many legitimate eurobond issues, so such a criterion would be difficult to put into operation. However, we propose to explore the possibility of removing the exemption when bonds are issued to connected persons. We are making a substantially different offer with the aim of closing a loophole that everyone knows is being abused, and on which the Government have failed to act. I should be happy to meet the Minister and talk to him about how we propose to close down the eurobond exemption. I do not have access to the same officials as he does, but I do have another way of closing down that exemption.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not, because I am going to make some more progress.

Thirdly, we have said that we will prevent hedge funds that are avoiding stamp duty on shares from being able to do so. Hedge funds currently avoid stamp duty by not buying the shares directly; instead, they get intermediaries to buy them on their behalf. Those intermediaries are investment banks, which benefit from tax relief on stamp duty. The hedge funds then enter into a contract for difference with the banks, which means that they benefit from changes in the share prices without holding the shares directly. That is an exploitation of intermediaries’ relief by hedge funds.

We have had a great deal of discussion about hedge funds in the past few days. I note, in particular, that during Prime Minister’s Question Time today, the Prime Minister did not address the point of the relief that is being abused. He wanted to get involved in a debate about who had introduced the relief, rather than about the fact that it is currently being abused by hedge funds. We have said that we will stop the practice, but we hear nothing from the Government about what they intend to do about an issue of which they too are fully aware.

Fourthly, we will take forward proposals that we were developing in government to deem construction workers to be employed for tax purposes if they meet criteria that most people would regard as obvious signs of employment. That would reverse the Government’s decision to abandon these measures, thereby dealing with a major cause of avoidance in the construction sector.

Finally, we would scrap the Government’s shares for rights scheme, which allows individuals to trade key employment rights for shares in a company. The policy has received widespread criticism. Writing in the Financial Times, Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:

“just as concern over tax avoidance is at its highest in living memory, just as government ministers are falling over themselves to condemn such behaviour, that same government is trumpeting a new tax policy that looks like it will foster a whole new avoidance industry. Its own fiscal watchdog seems to suggest that the policy could cost a staggering £1 billion a year, and that a large portion of that could arise from ‘tax planning’.”

Labour will scrap the shares for rights scheme and redeploy HMRC resources to other areas where they are greatly needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The first point to make is that it is a matter for HMRC to challenge in accordance with the law, and taxpayer confidentiality applies. As a Minister, I do not get involved in individual cases.

Furthermore, if we want to address broader matters—I am not talking about any individual company here—and if the hon. Gentleman wants to address the issue of businesses carrying on activities here but not paying taxes here because they do not have a permanent establishment, the diverted profits tax is just the measure he should want. It is designed to address that issue.

I say again that I am not talking about the specific case, but in general the measure deals with circumstances in which contrived and artificial arrangements are made so that a business manages to misuse, if you like, the permanent establishment rules. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but the Government are already dealing with it.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I welcome the diverted profits tax. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a double problem, which is partly the European Union rules, particularly the parent-subsidiary directive, which makes tax avoidance all too easy, and partly the fact that international tax law is out of date? It was set in the 19th century, is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be updated and modernised, which is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have been working on.

[Mr Gauke]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who brings great expertise on these matters to the House. There are constraints with regard to European law as to precisely what measures can be undertaken, and he is right to say that the international tax system needs to be modernised. The strongest voices calling for that happen to be those of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Under the UK’s presidency of the G8, we called for a new global standard of automatic tax information exchange. Endorsed by the G20, this marks a step change in the ability of Governments to tackle tax evasion. It will rapidly remove the remaining financial hiding places. The common reporting standard instigated by the UK along with our G5 partners—France, Germany, Italy and Spain—has seen over 90 countries and jurisdictions, including all the UK’s Crown dependencies and overseas territories with a financial centre, commit to automatic exchange of information, with the first exchange in 2017 or 2018. This will give HMRC access to information on billions of pounds worth of assets held offshore.

On Switzerland, our agreement has so far raised over £1.2 billion that would otherwise have remained beyond our reach. I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood referred to £900 million. That is almost two thirds of the £1.9 billion that the latest forecasts expect it to raise. HMRC has contacted more than 22,000 of the 25,000 people who agreed that their accounts could be disclosed to HMRC and time is running out for those who continue to hide.

The Government have been tough on avoidance and evasion, both here in the United Kingdom and on the international stage. The measures that we have taken so far in this Parliament to tackle aggressive tax planning, avoidance and evasion add up to £7.6 billion in additional revenues in 2015-16. Do the Opposition think their proposals can get anywhere near that sum? As a result of the actions that we have taken, it is now much harder for avoiders and evaders to cheat the system and get away with not paying what they owe. Our multilateral agreements are systematically removing the remaining international hiding places. As a result, HMRC is collecting more tax than ever before, supporting our public services and helping this nation get back on its economic feet, because that is how we get a fair and balanced economic recovery for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who always makes such fascinating and interesting speeches and observations—[Interruption.] Indeed—and colourful, as well.

I want to draw attention to the incredible amount of historical revisionism we have seen in the debate. It is worth looking back first at what happened in the 13 years before this Government came to office. In those years, the Labour party was very taken with its prawn cocktail offensive and allowed a culture of industrial-scale tax avoidance to grow. We can see it in the figures. During Labour’s time in office, income tax rose by 81% whereas non-oil corporation tax receipts rose by just 7%. Under the previous Conservative Government, between 1986 and 1997, income tax receipts rose by about 79% whereas non-oil corporation tax receipts rose by a stunning 144%. If anybody wants to see more receipts and more money coming in from business, they should send for the Conservatives. We have seen that happen again in this Parliament. Income tax receipts have gone up by 11% whereas non-oil corporation tax receipts have gone up 16%. Again, business tax receipts have outstripped income tax receipts.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Those points are important, but capital gains tax is equally important. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) said, this Government’s rates change on business assets—from 10% under the previous Government to 28%—is huge and has made a massive difference in the number of millionaires that are being created.

[Charlie Elphicke]

That is indeed a huge change. The Government have also supported entrepreneurs with entrepreneurs’ relief, which I greatly welcome.

Under this Government, the tax gap for 2012-13 is lower as a percentage of tax receipts than in any year under the previous Labour Government. Tax yield for HMRC has gone up by £7 billion since 2010-11. The Government have been very effective at dealing with the tax gap and bringing in receipts. The corporation tax gap for large businesses in 2009-10 was £2 billion, whereas in 2012-13 it was lower, at £1.8 billion. We see a lot of revisionism from Labour, but when it came to getting money through the door they had an atrocious record. The Conservative party and this Government have had an effective record. Why? We understand that to up the take one must cut the rate. That is what the Government have done with corporation tax, with massive success.

Let me draw attention to another problem with the Labour party: its proposals are completely and utterly muddled. Labour talks about UK overseas territories that do not have a public central register for offshore companies being on some sort of OECD blacklist. The only problem is that countries such as America, Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands and a whole stream of other countries do not do that. The chances of getting the OECD nations that do not do that to agree to blacklist a whole lot of other nations that do not do it are minimal, and that shows the absurdity of the Labour position.

[Mark Garnier]

A further absurdity of the Labour position is the comments that have been made about tax havens. In the talk about subsidiaries in so-called tax havens, how we define a tax haven was not mentioned. It is a relative thing. Many people look to the UK as a tax haven, yet there are plenty of banks in the UK that nobody would suggest closing down.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If I wanted to avoid tax on an industrial scale, I would not use the Channel Islands. I would use the European Union: I would use Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands—and, goodness me, that is exactly what happens. Why? Because European Union tax rules are structured to enable that to happen. Labour did nothing in their years in power to deal with the massive problems of the European Union and the nature of the parent-subsidiary directive. They should be ashamed of themselves. Nor did they do anything to deal with the problems of international tax avoidance. Companies such as Starbucks, Amazon, Google and Apple—the list goes on—pay hardly any tax in this country because the tax rules were set up in the 19th century and are not fit for purpose.

In the past decade, the previous Government did nothing at all on this. They were utterly asleep at the wheel. They were in denial. They were too busy snuggling up to businesses to hold them to account. They did not make the case for reform of the international tax rules. What have this Government done? They have made the case internationally to the OECD. This Chancellor and this Prime Minister have said that the rules for branch and tax presence are out of date and need to be updated. The rules on transfer pricing and many other international tax rules are out of date and not fit for purpose in the internet age. They need to be updated. It is this Government who have made the running, not just here at home but internationally. It is this Government who have introduced the diverted profit tax and are seeking to deal with this enormous problem.

As for Labour’s other ideas, they are hopelessly muddled. Who was it who brought in the stamp duty reserve tax on share transfers? My recollection is that it was the previous Labour Government. Now they are saying it is all a terrible mistake. What about the issue of the stamp duty reserve tax and schedule 19? They say it is a relief for hedge funds, but they do not understand that a hedge fund could not actually use this relief. This is another Labour pension tax. We in this House know about Labour’s pension taxes, their attack on thrift, on savings, on the savings culture, and the undermining of anyone who wants to take personal responsibility. This proposal is another attempt at a pensions tax. Again, we see Labour coming to this House with an Opposition day debate, claiming to be concerned about tax avoidance when their record in government suggests the complete opposite. The record of this Government suggests a very strong approach. Labour’s policies and proposals are completely and utterly muddled.

This Government have a strong record that I am proud of. I am proud of what we have done. I am proud of the fact that we have ensured that those who have been gaming the system are increasingly being brought to book. I am ashamed of what the previous Government did and ashamed of the Opposition coming to the House and talking the way they do, when they had such a shocking and disgraceful record in office.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am not aware of whether interviews were held on Lord Green’s appointment, either as a lord or as a business adviser, under the previous Government.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that in the years up to 2010, income tax receipts rose by 81%, while non-oil corporation tax receipts rose by 6%? Does he agree that an industrial-scale tax-avoidance culture arose, fanned by the prawn cocktail offensive, whereas this Government’s actions have helped to close the tax gap?

[Mr Gauke]

As a Government, we believe in low and competitive rates of corporation tax, but we also believe that those taxes should be paid. That is why we have strengthened the capacity of HMRC, why we are introducing the diverted profits tax, and why we are leading the way in international reforms of the corporate tax system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Those analyses ignore some of the most important and most progressive policies put in place by the Government. They ignore the pupil premium, which is investing money in the life chances of young people. They ignore the extra early years education provided to three and four-year-olds, and to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. They are not included in those analyses, but they are helping to ensure that young people have better life chances under this Government.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Minister not agree that it is important to note that real wages are rising, real disposable income is rising, child poverty is down and inequality is down under this Government?

[Danny Alexander]

It is very important to note all three of those facts, but it is also important not to be complacent. There is a lot more to do to ensure that we continue to deliver the successful growing economy that is creating jobs, because ultimately getting into work is the best route out of poverty for families.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The British economy has grown faster than any major European economy over the last four years. It has created 1.7 million new jobs and 750,000 new businesses, and today the Governor of the Bank of England described it as being in a “sweet spot”, but Labour opposed every difficult decision we took to do that. It opposed every spending cut and welfare change. It goes around the country pretending it would reverse these things. It has made £20 billion of unfunded spending commitments. Every day in this Chamber, Labour Members ask for more public money to be spent on more things and complain about the difficult decisions we have taken. It is a totally incredible position from the Labour party and it is being exposed today.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is it not obvious that the Labour party is stuck in the past, talking about things done years ago and frightened to talk about the future? Did the Chancellor hear Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies say on the “Today” programme that borrowing would be higher under a Labour Government and that debt would be higher in the long run? The IFS says it; the Labour party ought to admit it.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The IFS today confirmed that Labour would borrow £170 billion more. This is its published plan. It is extraordinary that Labour Members are totally silent about it. They are not prepared to talk to the British people about what I assume they believe to be the right economic policy for the country.

I want to make sense of this strange journey that the Labour party has taken on fiscal policy over this Parliament. After all the twists and turns, I think it has managed to end up in exactly the same place as it started. In 2010, as part of his pitch for the Labour leadership—we thought at the time he was a worse choice than the current leader, but given all that has happened, perhaps we were wrong—the shadow Chancellor said we should not be cutting spending. He said that more spending would grow the economy and that the economic growth would eliminate the deficit. That was the position he set out in his Bloomberg speech—his so-called plan B. The problem was it was rejected by the British public and eventually by the Labour party. So two years ago, Labour changed its approach and committed to the original phrase of “iron discipline”. The only problem was there was no iron discipline and instead it made all those spending commitments. Last autumn, it moved on to another approach—the Basil Fawlty approach—which was not to mention the deficit at all. I think the House can agree that the Labour leader executed that strategy brilliantly at the Labour party conference.

In December, at the end of last year, Labour tried something else. The shadow Chancellor announced that he would seek to balance the current budget and get debt falling, but he would not say when, saying just as soon as possible. When pressed on specific dates, he dismissed them; he said he would not sign up to some arbitrary timetable. When challenged specifically to match our plans, he said a month ago, on 11 December, that he was not going to set a timetable to balance the current budget by 2017. Here he is, one month later, saying that he is going to vote in favour of a timetable to balance the current budget by 2017-18.

I thought that was the end of Labour’s journey. They had ended up supporting a charter that they had previously rejected, a timetable to which they had previously refused to sign up and £30 billion of cuts they had previously denounced. Then, this weekend, we were treated to the spectacle on “The Andrew Marr Show” of the Labour leader dismissing the charter altogether, rejecting the £30 billion figure and returning full circle to where the Labour party started four years ago. This is what the Labour leader said on Sunday:

“if we just try and cut our way to getting rid of this deficit, it won’t work.”

That is the latest version of the Labour party’s policy. It is exactly where they were four years ago. The Labour leader has gone full circle and gone back to saying that the answer to our debts is simply to grow the economy. That is economically illiterate when we have a structural deficit, and it is based on the fiddle of trying to upgrade the country’s trend growth rates—exactly the mistake made by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) when he was Chancellor and got us into this mess. Labour has gone from plan B to plan A to no plan at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

That is absolutely right. I will answer that question directly. Instead of the provisions in the charter, we should be tackling the deficit reduction and the debt reduction in a different way. It should not be a fixed-term approach; it should be a principles-based approach based on the medium term. It has been proven to work in New Zealand, and I want to refer to the way in which it goes about that. It says that the first principle should be about reducing debt to a prudent level, where the Government of the day specify what is or is not prudent, depending on the circumstances that they face—precisely the point that my hon. Friend made. The second principle should be that once debt is reduced, the Government should maintain a balanced budget over the medium to long term. That would not prevent any Government from implementing the steps they believe are necessary to achieve the long-term objective of having a prudent level of deficit, but it would mean that it would happen, on average, over the medium to long term, rather than arbitrarily specifying one cycle or one Parliament.

The third principle says that the Government should achieve and maintain a level of net worth that provides a buffer against unforeseen future factors. The fourth principle calls on the Government to manage fiscal risks prudently, and the fifth is that the Government must pursue policies consistent with a reasonable degree of predictability about the level and stability of tax rates. That is incredibly important, because the tax system, tax rates and tax certainty, which have not yet been mentioned today, are a vital component of fiscal stability and fiscal responsibility. In the sense that we have seen tax yields reduce, it is all the more important to get that bit right.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about fiscal stability and fiscal responsibility, but let me take him to task on the plans the SNP made, based on the price of oil, and what has happened to the price of oil. Does that not show that what the SNP has to say on these matters is not worth listening to?

[Stewart Hosie]

That is a ridiculous argument. If one thinks that those oil revenues, which are most certainly falling, are causing a big hit to the UK tax yield, all the more reason, one would have thought, to allow a degree of flexibility in the economic plan so that the overall strategy of deficit consolidation and debt reduction is achieved, rather than the facile political comment from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke).

Before I move to the second and third criticisms of the plan, on the overall plan for deficit consolidation and our opposition to it being on a fixed-term basis, when the New Zealand finance committee looked at alternative models—rigid, straitjacketed models—it made a number of interesting observations. The committee said that there was no solid theoretical justification for any particular fiscal target to be maintained over a period of time, and that judgments on the appropriate level of fiscal aggregates vary over time and depend on the prevailing economic circumstances. A fixed-term target with a fixed objective cannot do that.

Having looked at other countries, the committee said that their experience of legislated targets suggests that there are substantial risks attached to their use. In particular, rigid adherence can seriously distort decision making and, unless carefully handled, minor variations from target can result in significant but unnecessary damage to credibility. The committee went on to observe, in the context of the inherent inflexibility of a fixed target system, that it

“makes it difficult for fiscal policy to respond appropriately to the inevitable volatility of economic circumstances.”

Given that we have seen, and hon. Members have commented on, the eurozone crisis, the Cyprus banking crisis, the Irish bank bail-out and other issues, to put this country back into a straitjacket of a policy which has failed so far, ignoring the possibility that similar shocks could occur in the near and medium-term future, is silly and wilful. It is most certainly a political dividing line which we will not support.

Apart from its inherent inflexibility, our second criticism of the measure is that it sets in concrete a further attack on welfare budgets. With 22% of Scottish children, 11% of Scottish pensioners and 21% of working age adults in poverty, to launch a further attack on welfare at this time under the guise of amending the charter for budget responsibility is simply wrong. Thirdly, to set out a plan for future discretionary consolidation, on which the charter is predicated, which changes the ratio of cuts to tax rises from 4:1 to 9:1 to try, in effect, to balance the books on the backs of the poor is completely wrong.

We do not believe that anyone genuinely opposed to austerity could support the measure tonight. We do not believe that anyone who is genuinely opposed to the draconian changes to welfare can support this Government tonight. We do not believe that anyone who is opposed to trying to balance the books on the backs of the poor and take public spending levels back to those of the 1930s can support this Government tonight. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will oppose the measure tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Pat Glass. Not here.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

5. What estimate he has made of corporation tax receipts in each year since 2010; and if he will make a statement.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs publishes annual corporation tax statistics every August. They show that revenues from corporation tax, excluding the ring-fenced oil and gas regime, were £35 billion in 2010-11, £33 billion in 2011-12, £35 billion in 2012-13 and £36 billion in 2013-14. The Government have delivered major cuts to corporation tax, but increased growth and investment in the UK mean that revenues from the main regime were higher last year than in 2010.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Is my hon. Friend aware that non-oil corporation tax receipts have risen 16% over the course of this Parliament so far, compared with a rise of just 8% over the entirety of the previous 13 years? Does that not show that if you cut the rate, you up the take? [Interruption.] How will the diverted profits tax work?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question was simply too long. The hon. Gentleman should have cut it off when he was winning, instead of going on for too long, which is what he then continued to do.