National Insurance Contributions Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I welcome this measure. It is just the thing to spur on the private sector. In evidence to the Treasury Committee, Alan Clarke said that it was a “particularly encouraging measure”. Mr Whiting, of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, said that it was a

“worthwhile experiment for the small, new business with new employees.”

This is just the sort of measure to encourage the private sector that the House should be passing.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for that intervention. We have to build this private sector recovery. This measure is a useful contribution, particularly to those regions where the private sector is not as strong as elsewhere. It is a transitional measure, scheduled to end in three years. We are committed to monitoring and evaluating its effectiveness over that period to ensure its success.

It is not our intention for this policy disproportionately to benefit businesses that employ highly paid staff. For that reason, the maximum amount that an employer can profit from any single employee is limited to £5,000. That cap ensures that the policy will not distort European Union markets and that it complies with state aid legislation. We do not expect any significant competitive disadvantage to arise either for existing businesses or for new businesses in regions where the holiday does not apply. The Bill also makes provision for the administration of this measure. Businesses benefiting from the holiday can withhold the employer contributions from the monthly payments they make to HMRC. If the payment cannot be withheld, the businesses can apply to HMRC for a refund. That will help to minimise employers’ costs as well as the costs of delivery.

The Government expect that hundreds of thousands of businesses will benefit from the measure over the next three years. In the Budget, we estimated that new businesses would save hundreds of millions of pounds worth of national insurance contributions during the lifetime of the scheme, giving them the ability to hire more staff, expand their business or invest in the recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

But there were no caveats about a shortfall in the Budget proposals of about £1.4 billion. I think it is smoke and mirrors—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) said, it is coupled with the increase in VAT from next year. The VAT rise will impact more than three times as much as the increase to national insurance contributions would have done, and will affect 250,000 jobs.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke); the national insurance holiday will not apply in his constituency.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the national insurance holiday will not apply in my constituency—a matter that I regret. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that 1,400 of the least well-off people in my constituency will be taken out of tax altogether. It seems that he opposes the increase in the personal allowance and would rather cut national insurance, which we originally planned to do. Instead, we are helping the least well-off. Surely he would welcome that.

[Mr Hanson]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman going back to Dover to explain why he is supporting not only a Bill that does not give a national insurance holiday to his constituents, but the VAT rise elsewhere in the Budget proposals—we need to look at that in the round—which will impact on pensioners, the low paid and everybody in his community. This is not a topic for today, but the debate on the national insurance rise was open and honest on our side. During and after the election, the Conservative party argued against the rise, but it is now implementing it. On top of that, it is not meeting the objectives in its manifesto and has increased VAT. I think that a VAT rise is a regressive tax policy that will hit the poorest hardest, but that is the choice that the Conservative party has made.

I want to focus most of my remarks on the second part of the Bill. The decision to introduce a regional employer national insurance holiday is welcome, but it specifically excludes new businesses in Greater London, the south-east and the eastern region. We tabled a reasoned amendment that has not been selected, but which would have declined to give a Second Reading to the Bill because of those exclusions. I sense that the hon. Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) and for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who spoke earlier, will have expressed their concerns about how the choices on the national insurance holiday were made. [Interruption.] The Economic Secretary to the Treasury says that we would have increased national insurance contributions across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman will know that North West Leicestershire will benefit from the scheme, but I hope that he will look slightly beyond the confines of Leicestershire and talk to the hon. Members for Portsmouth North, for Meon Valley and for Basildon and Billericay, who have all expressed concern about the proposals.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us whether he is in favour of his constituents not having this benefit at this time.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I spoke on the subject of regionalisation in the Finance Bill, and we have to take the rough with the smooth. Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that in places such as Delyn, 500 new jobs have been created in the past six months? In Dover 500 new jobs have also been created in the past six months. Across the country as a whole, about 300,000 new private sector jobs have been created in the past six months. Does he not welcome that?

[Mr Hanson]

I think I know Delyn better than the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to come to me to talk to the 320 people who lost their jobs yesterday at Headland Foods in Flint, I should be happy to discuss the issue. That happened only yesterday in my constituency, so I will not take any lessons from him about what happens on my patch in north Wales.

I will tell the hon. Gentleman straight away, however, that West Ham has 6.8% unemployment, Tottenham 7.4% and Camberwell 6%. That is more than three times the level of unemployment in Tatton, in Richmond (Yorks), represented by the Foreign Secretary, and in Derbyshire Dales, represented by the Government Chief Whip. Indeed, it is four times the level in Sheffield Hallam, represented by the Deputy Prime Minister. All those areas will benefit from the scheme, while areas of severe deprivation in London will not.

Let us look at the constituencies of coalition Cabinet members. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk has 2.8% unemployment, North East Somerset has 1.6%, Tatton has 2.1%—

Financial Assistance (Ireland)

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

At the moment, there is heightened concern around the world about European countries with high budget deficits. One such country is the UK, but there is no heightened concern about us because of the measures that we have taken. If we followed what the hon. Gentleman and Labour Front Benchers propose, and if I were to say at the Dispatch Box tomorrow, “You know what. We are abandoning our fiscal plans set out in the Budget and the spending review, and instead engaging in a loosening of those plans,” I can only imagine what the international reaction would be.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Being there for a friend in need overseas and unbankrupting ourselves at home are right and proper. However, how could it ever be right or proper for a Government voted out of office to engage in major financial commitments for the UK while squatting in Downing street?

[Mr Osborne]

I think my hon. Friend is referring to the period between the general election and the creation of this Government. I have given the House my account of that. I thanked the former Chancellor for keeping us out of the eurozone facility, but I did not agree with his decision to commit us to the mechanism, and I communicated that to him. However, I also made it clear at the time there can only be one Chancellor of the Exchequer operating for the UK, even in the unusual situation between the general election and the formation of this Government. He will account for his decisions and I will account for mine.

Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

As I said, no formal request has been made for assistance. We have a clear national interest in the stability of the Irish economy, and that must be recognised.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does not the crisis in Ireland and across Europe underline how right the Government have been to take the tough but necessary action to save us from bankruptcy? Will the Minister condemn the siren voices in Europe that are talking down Ireland, and will he be a friend in need, as we, as a country, should be?

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Evans]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I give way to my good friend from Dover.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know him to be a generous Member of the House. With his customary generosity, will he acknowledge that the amount is nevertheless three times that which the previous Government said they would have given as compensation?

[Chris Leslie]

We will not know that, because Chadwick’s report was published after the general election. We had a series of steps that would have then been taken, but history went in a different direction because the spending review and the Budget were undertaken by a different party, not by our party in government. I am not saying that there are magic solutions to this issue. These are complex matters and there are technical reasons for both the methodologies that are being used in the compensation and the timings and the discussions around them. It is important to bear in mind the wider needs of the public purse. We have consistently said that and now the Government have come round to that point of view. I understand why they did.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend makes the important point that those are high-skilled, highly technical jobs that will bring investment to this country. They are intellectual capacity jobs that are helping to grow the areas of our international markets that we need to grow.

To follow up on what the hon. Member for Dundee East said, Edward Troup, the managing director of budget, tax and welfare at the Treasury, said to the Scottish Affairs Committee:

“There would be issues; there would be boundary issues,”

but crucially, he continued, “but it would work.” I am not trying to make political capital out of the matter, but if it is proved that the tax break would work—meaning that it can be applied, can deliver, will keep jobs in this country, will grow business and will help resources be reinvested in the British economy—will the Exchequer Secretary be willing to accept the principle and introduce an appropriate clause in some future Finance Bill?

If it is found that the tax break would work but the Exchequer Secretary will not introduce it, I will have to presume that he is not interested in doing so, rather than that he is concerned about its applicability and workability. If so, he is on an entirely different page from the one that the Under-Secretary was on in April, that the Chancellor was on before the general election and that the hon. Member for Bath, who is part of the coalition, was on at that time.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a perennial point that shadow Ministers make, to which actual Ministers presumably perennially say no. May I point out to him the table in proposed new section 1216Q of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, in new schedule 2? It mentions points being given for at least 50% of a game’s production budget being incurred in the UK, and proposed new section 1216R states what the percentage of UK expenditure has to be. Will he confirm that that does not conflict with any European law provision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

(Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 2 would force the Treasury to come clean on its plans to withdraw child benefit from families with higher-rate taxpayers from January 2013, which will take £2.5 billion a year from those families from 2014-15 onwards.

Ever since the Chancellor announced the policy of means-testing child benefit a month ago at the Conservative party conference, the policy has gradually unravelled. The Treasury has struggled to spell out exactly how it will implement the idea—especially as there has rightly been separate and independent taxation of individuals since 1990, when it was recognised that there were major problems with taxing women as though their income were effectively part of their husbands’ property. Those days may seem long ago now—it is 20 years since Lady Thatcher left Downing street, and 20 years since Britain joined the exchange rate mechanism—but the Government have adopted a déjà-vu approach to policy making which looks set to reopen that history.

We have grown used to the principle of independent taxation over the past two decades, and many now take it for granted, but we ought to pause and reflect on why it is so important. The Government’s proposed changes to child benefit imply a requirement for mothers to disclose their receipt of child benefit to their partners, and a requirement for partners or husbands to be taxed on the income of their spouses. That represents a potential breach of the principle of separate and individual taxation which, as the new clause says, was introduced in the Finance Act 1988, and which applied from 1990 onwards.

The 1988 Act introduced a radical change in the system of taxing husbands and wives: independent taxation. Until then, husbands and wives were viewed as one person for tax purposes, and the Revenue, of course, saw only the husband. The spouse’s income and gains were added together, and the couple were treated as if the total income were that of the husband. He was responsible for completing the annual tax return and for paying all tax due, including that on his wife’s income and gains. However, with the introduction of independent taxation, spouses were treated as separate individuals for tax purposes and for the first time married women enjoyed privacy in, and responsibility for, their own tax affairs. In addition, some married couples were paying more tax because they were married than they would have if they had been cohabiting. That drew much criticism at the time.

It is instructive to look back at the speeches advocating the virtues of independent taxation, especially by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has since been ennobled as Lord Lamont. In the 1988 Budget debate he called this reform

“a radical proposal for independent taxation…It will give married women the independence and privacy in tax matters that they have been denied for so long…Under the new system, a married woman will be treated as a taxpayer in her own right with a full personal allowance to set against her income, and her own basic rate band. She will have responsibility for her own tax matters and will be able to enjoy complete privacy if she wishes…It is an important principle that there should be independence and privacy in taxation matters.”—[Official Report, 16 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 1193-94.]

Clearly the Prime Minister should heed the words of his former boss in these matters. I gather that Lord Lamont is still occasionally called upon to give advice to his former special adviser. Perhaps their diaries clashed on the day of the fateful decision on child benefit, but there is still time for the Prime Minister to make that call to Lord Lamont, and to see the error of his ways and rein in his doctrinaire Chancellor on this issue, especially as the Prime Minister promised before the general election to protect child benefit. Winding the clock back 20 years and reversing decades of progress in equality in taxation and in the responsibilities of individuals for their own income risks creating a set of major perversities in the tax system that could have significant ramifications. That is why the Opposition are opposed to the changes in child benefit.

Let us consider the administrative shambles that would be created if the Government were to get their way. The Wall Street Journal has reported insiders in the civil service talking of “panic stations” at the Treasury with growing acceptance that the policy is virtually “unenforceable” and “likely to be ditched”. If a mother is under no legal obligation to tell the father that she is in receipt of child benefit—unless we do see the end of independent taxation, of course—how can this tax on families work? Currently, the father’s tax status is irrelevant to the mother’s entitlement to child benefit. Can the Minister tell the House how this clawback arrangement will work, especially if parents are divorced or divorcing or separated or separating, or if the mother simply declines to report the tax status of the father of her children to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs officials?

Can the Minister also tell us whether the rumour that the Treasury is considering a new database to match mothers with their partners is true, and would that not make the Child Support Agency seem a bit like a pocket calculator by comparison? Will the Minister spell out the mechanisms the Treasury envisages in respect of this policy, and the enforcement mechanisms it is planning to put in place to take these sums off families earning approximately £45,000 or above? Will the Treasury be relying on a self-certification approach by the partner not in receipt of child benefit? Will the Minister take this opportunity to state for the record that the Government will continue with the important principle that mothers should be the primary recipient of child benefit payments?

The poor design of this policy could easily undermine revenue plans too. Clawing back the cost of the benefit from higher rate taxpayers through the tax system would be “intrusive” and involve lots of form filling. That is the opinion of one of the Chancellor’s own advisers on tax policy, John Whiting, whom the Chancellor recently appointed as the tax director of the Office of Tax Simplification. Mr Whiting suggests that the policy would be an administrative burden that would merely “make a dent” in the estimated £2.5 billion of savings the Treasury claims the change would bring. We are not alone in questioning the logic of this ill-thought-through proposal, therefore. We know from the reporting on this policy that the Chancellor rode roughshod over his Cabinet colleagues when it was announced at the Conservative party conference. Clearly many in the Cabinet were oblivious to those plans when the Chancellor sprung them on them, but it is now clear that he also rode roughshod over those in the civil service. They were insufficiently included in the plans for this policy and had he consulted them properly, they would have pointed out the chaos that it would create.

These are serious matters affecting millions of families across the UK, not only millionaires such as the Chancellor’s family or the Prime Minister’s family, but those on relatively modest incomes. They include police officers, college tutors, health service workers, senior teachers, pharmacists, paramedics, train drivers and air traffic controllers. Many are caught up in this category, the arbitrary design of which will create great unfairness with punitively high marginal rates of taxation.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman seems to want to convince the House that £45,000 a year is not very much money, but he should tell that to my constituents, whose average annual earnings are less than £20,000; that is what the average job pays in Dover and that is the norm in many parts of this country outside London. My constituents look askance at the fact that people on £45,000, a sum of earnings that they aspire to and dream of having, receive benefits. They tell me on the doorstep that they think that that is wrong, in principle, and that this measure is the right one to take.

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman is doing his job, supporting a policy that was not the one espoused in his party’s manifesto. It certainly was not the policy that the Prime Minister advocated before the election when he promised to protect universal child benefit—he now says that it should be taken away from these “rich” individuals, but I do not agree. I do not believe that this class of middle-income families is necessarily finding life easy on this particular range of salaries. We have to speak up for that squeezed middle in society and that is absolutely what the Opposition intend to do. Where a policy could see a £1 pay rise for these families result in the loss of £2,000 in child benefit, depending on the number of children involved, it involves a punitively high rate of marginal taxation that surely even Members on the Government Benches would agree is flawed.

At last week’s Treasury Committee sitting, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Mike Brewer, described these cliff-edge issues as “economically perverse” and “distorting”. He also said that it “seems unfair” that two families in different circumstances but perhaps separated by very small sums should be “treated so differently”. His colleague, Carl Emmerson, added:

“The income tax system, by being individually based, is basically neutral about whether individuals”

should be taxed separately or together and that that is an “advantage” in the tax system.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has rightly asked,

“why should a family on £45,000 where one person stays at home lose their child benefit—£1,000, 2,000, £3,000 a year—but a family on £80,000 where both partners… are working should keep their child benefit?”—[Official Report, 13 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 322-23.]

Even the Treasury has, begrudgingly, had to publish some statistics showing that this policy would create all sorts of anomalies and odd behaviour. It published a figure in the Budget suggesting that it expected to lose £270 million each year in revenue from people tax planning as they navigated this madness.

A family with three children on £33,000 a year after tax is to lose £2,500 from 2013—that is the equivalent of a 6p in the pound hike in their income tax. Middle-class families are being hit, and it is particularly pernicious of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to focus on children in this way as a means of raising money—they are clubbing families over the head with a higher tax burden while, of course, letting the banks off the hook. At the very least the Treasury should accept the new clause and agree to publish an independent review of the consequences for independent taxation if its plans for child benefit taxation of higher rate paying family members are to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Let me make three very quick points, parts of which will pick up on comments that have already been made.

The first point is the issue of declaration. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) mentioned last week’s Treasury Committee hearing, during which I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury how he intended to enforce the new child benefit measure. He said that the coalition Government will introduce legislation to require higher rate taxpayers to declare whether child benefit is coming into the household. Such a declaration is partly dependent on information being passed from one partner to the other. The Chief Secretary was very clear that the obligation to provide the information will be on the higher rate taxpayer. Why not also introduce a requirement in respect of the other half of the couple? As the Chief Secretary did not answer that, will the Minister now shed some light on it and reveal whether the Treasury has taken proper legal advice? The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), a former tax lawyer, is in the Chamber. I wonder whether he advised his colleagues.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As a lawyer, I might be very cautions, but as someone who has been in a relationship and who has found that couples tend to talk, I will ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of any couples with children who do not share their financial information?

[Mr Umunna]

I do not usually ask my friends and acquaintances whether they share financial information with their partners, but I hear the comments of the hon. Gentleman.

My second point is, how will it be possible to prove the connection between the mother and the higher rate taxpayer, bearing in mind the problems that we have been having at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? Given that HMRC’s resources have been cut over the past few years, how will it be able to keep tabs on the situation between couples on a monthly basis? As some 1.2 million families will be affected by the new measure, will HMRC be given any more funding to enable it to enforce the new change and to keep tabs on what is happening out there in the nation?

Finally, John Whiting, joint interim head of the Office of Tax Simplification, has obviously commented on the problems of the new measure, but what is the point in setting up such an office when the people working within it and those heading it up have not been properly consulted or asked to advise on this measure? Surely, if the Government are not minded to accept this new clause, it would be a good idea to delay the introduction of this measure and ask the Office of Tax Simplification to do its job and advise on how it can be more efficiently introduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. We have to be prudent in how we address these questions, and I hope to come to some of the matters he raises as we explore corporation tax and so on. If he bears with me, I will—hopefully—elaborate.

UBS analysts said that they expected Lloyds and HSBC to benefit by 2012 because of the cut in corporation tax bills, which in their case was larger than the hit they expected to be sustained through the banking levy. It seems, therefore, that the banking levy is playing quite a small part, perhaps a walk-on character—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

A walk-on character with very few lines—unlike the hon. Gentleman, to whom I give way.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I would like to put a couple of points to the hon. Gentleman. First, taking the case of Lloyds and RBS, are there not likely to be substantial carry-forward losses in those banks, which will not be paying corporation tax for many years to come, let alone by 2012? Secondly, were they then to face a higher rate of tax, which I believe he is proposing, would the cost on those banks not result in the devaluation of their shares, which are now owned by the public? Surely, it would go round in a circle.

[Chris Leslie]

I will come to deferred tax in a moment, because the corporation tax questions require much greater scrutiny. That is one reason we tabled the new clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in the Lobby, should we divide on this issue—unless the Treasury concede it—and that he agrees that we should have a review of the level of tax the banks are paying. If they are paying too much, which I doubt, I will be happy to look at the evidence and the facts. However, there is opacity about these questions, and given the hit falling on the shoulders of families and children in this country, it is incumbent on us to ask whether the banks will be paying their fair share. That is all we are asking this evening.

We think that the Government’s banking levy has been a limp effort so far. Given some of the corporation tax changes, there is a bit of a cashback arrangement for some of the banks. I would like to touch on three areas of corporation tax that I think require more serious and rigorous review. The first is that cashback boost for the banks resulting from the reduction in corporation tax rates announced in the Budget. The Exchequer Secretary confirmed in a written answer that over the lifetime of the spending review the Treasury expects that the cut in corporation tax main rate from 28% to 27%, and eventually down to 24%, will return £1 billion to the banks—specifically to the banks:

“£0.1 billion in 2011-12, £0.2 billion in 2012-13, £0.3 billion in 2013-14 and £0.4 billion in 2014-15.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2010; Vol. 512, c. 610W.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

As a member of the new intake, it was a privilege to serve on the Government side of the Pubic Bill Committee. I congratulate Ministers on ably putting forward the Government’s case in Committee.

This important Bill is one of the three key pieces of the Government’s programme for the finances of the country—the first was the emergency Budget and the second was the comprehensive spending review. It forms part of the way in which we will start righting the finances of the nation. Only today we heard a lot of deficit denial from Labour Members, yet the nation needs its finances sorted out. We in Dover are trying to help to do that, in our small way, through the prospective sale of our port. We say, “Don’t wait two years to flog it off overseas like Cadbury; let’s get on and do it now, with a community mutual purchasing the port, to ensure that the Government get their money by the end of the financial year.” Understandably, the harbour board is not pleased about that. Under its plans, it hopes to get millions for management, but I want millions for the people of Dover and the betterment of the community, just as the Government, through the Bill, seek the betterment of the nation as a whole.

Our finances are in a bad state. We have a structural deficit of £109 billion a year. By the end of the Parliament, even after we have reined in the deficit, our debt will have increased by £292 billion, and that is before we get on to asking how we pay down the national debt. The key message of the Bill, the Budget and the comprehensive spending review is that we must stop debts mounting before we can pay down the mortgage. We must get the finances of the nation back under proper control and on a level keel.

Just as I was privileged to be a member of the Public Bill Committee, I am privileged to support the Bill, and I congratulate Ministers on their excellent work.

Independent Financial Advisers

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Harriett Baldwin]

There are indeed advantages, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. He obviously has a lot of experience of dealing with the sector.

It is estimated that there are about 45,000 IFAs in the country, many of whom are sole traders.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Should those tens of thousands of small traders not be encouraged to use their entrepreneurialism to help people save, rather than being squashed by the dead hand of unthinking regulation?

Draft EU Budget 2011

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Over the past few months, we have spent a lot of our time debating one aspect or another of the financial crisis in which the country finds itself. Britain has a huge deficit, and the British public have collectively built up a mountain of personal debt. All in all, we are in a real mess. The Government have set out a series of measures to reduce the national debt, and I know that many individuals—including people in my constituency—are trying hard to cut down their indebtedness. These are tough times for us all, and we are not alone. Many other countries around the world, including many in Europe, are facing huge financial challenges and struggling to balance their books without pushing their national economies into another recession.

In this era of uncertainty and austerity, what does that organisation of probity and good governance, the European Commission, do? It proposes to increase the EU budget next year by 5.8%, which in real money represents an increase of £6,102 million. What planet do European Commissioners live on? They live on the planet of self-indulgence. They live in a cushioned climate of privilege in which the Brussels gravy train does not stop long enough for them to see what is happening in the real world.

To be fair to our own British Government, at least they recognise the stupidity of the European Commission. As the Economic Secretary wrote in a briefing note and confirmed this evening, the Government are very concerned about the proposed increase in appropriations of 5.8%. They might be very concerned, but I would be absolutely livid. I give at least one out of three cheers to the Treasury for that statement but, sadly, I cannot bring myself to give it any more cheers. My hon. Friend let herself down in addressing the EU problem by proposing that the EU budget remains at cash levels equivalent to the 2010 budget. That is also why I cannot support amendment (a). I bet all those Ministers tasked with making a 20% cut in their departmental budgets are a bit narked. I am sure that in the present economic climate, they would be delighted to be given a zero growth budget.

Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have been inundated with letters and e-mails complaining about the proposed cuts in benefits, increases in tuition fees and changes to public service pensions. There is a great deal of disquiet out there and representing a constituency that has some of the most deprived areas in the south-east within its boundaries, I share some of that disquiet, but I am happy to go into bat on behalf of the coalition Government and to argue the case for those cuts. I believe that in their heart of hearts, most people in my constituency understand that we have no choice but to push through those cuts if we are to reduce the mountain of debt we inherited from the previous Government.

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), however, I would not be able to look my friends and neighbours in the eye if we drove through a programme of painful cuts in our public services, while at the same time bunging the EU billions of pounds to waste on grandiose schemes such as the European External Action Service and the European Institute of Gender Equality in Vilnius, Lithuania, for which, incidentally, the UK is being asked to cough up £800,000.

Next year, the European Commission proposes to spend £7 billion on administration. By my calculation, the UK’s contribution to those administration costs will be about £1 billion. If Government Departments and public bodies in this country are being asked to cut their administration costs, it is surely right to expect the European Commission to do the same.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend note with concern that where the UK has a 15% increase in public spending over five years, the European Union wants to increase its spending by 60%?

[Gordon Henderson]

I am aware of those figures and I think that they are scandalous.

My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has said that the British Government will press the EU to deliver greater value for money, and I am sure that she and the Government will do so, but does anyone here really believe that our friends across the English channel in the European Commission will actually listen to them? When the draft budget is eventually presented to the European Parliament for debate later this year, do Treasury Ministers really think that anyone other than a small group of British MEPs will take a blind bit of notice of their view? I think not.

I would personally like to see the Government unilaterally reduce the UK’s contribution to the EU budget for 2011 by the average percentage cut imposed on Whitehall Departments. If the European Commission and the European Parliament do not like it and kick up a fuss, we should immediately hold a referendum on Britain’s continued membership and let the British people decide our future once and for all. Perhaps we could hold it on the same day as the referendum on the alternative vote.

I support amendment (b), and I urge Members in all parts of the House to do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I will be as brief as possible. I just wanted to note the following numbers. The total managed expenditure in the United Kingdom Budget will be £697 billion in 2010-11 rising to £700 billion in 2011-12. That is an increase of just 0.5%, whereas the European Union is really gunning for it with a 5.8% increase and, as we have heard, administration costs will rise by 4.4%.

It is worth noting what the Commission has to say about the administration costs. It says it has made particular efforts to limit its administrative expenditure and that rise is partially due to the higher than expected salary increases in 2009. So we in the UK are implementing austerity and limiting the pay rises for our public sector workers while the EU just carries on serenely as though nothing has happened. An increase of €380 million is entirely unacceptable.

We have heard about the total number of doctors, nurses and others who will be affected in the current circumstances, but let us look at the constituency numbers: nine doctors per constituency, 19 nurses, 23 policemen and 34 troops. That is the scale of the situation we are facing. The EU budget is therefore a ferocious and astonishing waste of money. It is entirely unacceptable that over a five-year period we in the UK are having a 10% rise in spending, but there will be a 60% rise for the EU. What do we as a nation get for that? Do we get any value at all?

Finally, I want to congratulate the Economic Secretary on making the strongest and most impassioned case on Europe from the Dispatch Box that any of us has seen in the past 20 years, setting out that the Government will take the EU to task and bang the table and make the points that need to be made. I hope I speak for the whole House when I say that in negotiating on this matter she has our strongest and best wishes. All Members on the Government Benches certainly want her to get the best deal for Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

If anything demonstrates the independence of the OBR it is the appointment of the head of the IFS to be the head of the OBR, and I hope that will put an end to any such criticisms from the hon. Gentleman’s side of the House. The analysis was interesting, but the analysis we published at the time of the Budget was robust and soundly based. I have carefully studied the IFS’s additional analysis, and I think it makes some assumptions that push the boundaries. As a result it is not an analysis the Treasury would stand by. I would stand by the view that the measures we announced in the Budget were progressive and fair and hit the people on the highest incomes hardest.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Can the Chief Secretary tell the House the benefits that the regional growth fund will have for neglected regions, in particular coastal and seaside towns?

[Danny Alexander]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until a week tomorrow for the spending review announcement to hear details of that sort, but I can tell him that the purpose of the regional growth fund is precisely to ensure that areas hit hardest by public spending cuts or areas most dependent on the public sector have an opportunity to put forward proposals for measures that would support their economic growth. The regional growth fund has been established to meet those proposals.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I would point out to the hon. Lady that the Office for Budget Responsibility says that there is a structural deficit of £109 billion—I believe that is the figure—which has nothing to do with the banking crisis or the recession and will not be eliminated by growth. Does she not accept that the previous Government have some or full responsibility for that structural deficit?

[Ms Eagle]

I think we need to have a much more grown-up discussion about how we ended up facing these economic challenges. One of the more underhand approaches that the Government have taken to this narrative has been to say that the economic challenges facing us, which are formidable, are somehow all about the previous Labour Government wasting public money and spending profligately. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is simply is not true—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), and particularly to comment on his pleas on behalf of small business. In Scotland, we have 302,000 businesses, and 285,000 employ fewer than 50 people. They do not issue commercial paper or corporate bonds. They do not do rights issues. They are not listed on markets or exchanges in the main. Ninety-nine per cent. of them are owned in Scotland. They are almost exclusively solely dependent on the retail high street banks for their credit lines and working capital, so the more the Minister and her team can do to ensure that affordable lending goes up, and that we do not get the conversion of mortgages to loans, which puts the houses of small business directors on the line should a business fold, the better. Those businesses are hurting. Given that they provide the vast majority of employment in Scotland, we need to ensure that that powerhouse, the SME sector, drives forward with all the capital that it needs. However, that is not what I wanted to speak about today. It was, however, a fantastic opportunity to get it in again.

It would be normal on Second Reading of a Finance Bill to refer to the Budget which it follows, although this is the second Finance Bill following the emergency Budget debate on 22 June. It was the debate that followed that and the debate on the Finance Bill on 6 July that gave us the opportunity properly to debate the Government's whole approach to dealing with the economy, although listening to many of the earlier speeches, I am not sure whether I have gone back three months and we are having the first Second Reading debate. Those were the opportunities, along with the debate on VAT on 13 July, to point out that this Government plan an additional £40 billion of fiscal tightening—over and above the £57 billion of cuts and tax rises planned by Labour—to remind the House that the ratio of cuts to tax increases has gone from 2:1 to 4:1 and to remind it also of the damage that would cause. The debate on the VAT rise, which, as Shelter explained to us helpfully in advance, will lead to the poorest families in the country paying £31 every week in VAT, was the opportunity to make the case against that rise.

This Finance (No. 2) Bill—the third in the calendar year—is different. It contains what the Minister described on 15 September as minor and technical measures, but that does not mean that we should not give it our full consideration, in particular those clauses and schedules which tax practitioners have raised real concerns about. I am grateful, as was the shadow Chief Secretary, to the Institute of Chartered Accountants for its response to the Government consultation. I will draw on that heavily and do something quite unusual in a Second Reading debate: refer in detail to clauses in the Bill. I hope we will get some technical answers when the Minister sums up.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants asks, in respect of part 3, clause 25 and schedule 9, paragraph 7, which inserts new paragraphs 2A and 2B into schedule 53 of the Finance Act 2009, whether, where a company has a profit in an earlier period and a loss or non-trading deficit on loan relationships in a later period that is carried back, interest on the earlier period profits will continue to accrue if in the absence of a claim late paid corporation tax would have been due, up to nine months after the end of the later period. I would welcome formal confirmation that that mirrors the existing rules. The institute adds that those rules perpetuate the existing differences between the interest rules where losses are carried back and offset against profits of an earlier period. Under existing rules, where losses are carried back against profits and where additional corporation tax would be due, interest will run from nine months after the end of the first accounting period. However, in cases where losses are carried back resulting in a repayment of corporation tax, repayment interest will only run from nine months after the end of the later period. I would have expected that, in a genuinely harmonised regime, late paid interest and interest on overpaid tax would ideally run from the same date. Therefore, will the Minister explain the Government's thinking on those proposals?

The institute also believes that paragraph 10, inserting new part Al into schedule 54 of the Finance Act 2009 on repayment interest, would deliver the opposite provisions to what is proposed in new paragraphs 2A and 2B in schedule 9. Again, please confirm that the new rules mirror the existing rules. The same question applies to franked investments in paragraph 11 of schedule 9. Do the new rules mirror the existing provisions?

Paragraph 12 inserts new schedule 54A into the 2009 Act and makes two further changes to the general rules that were introduced in 2009. This relates to new paragraphs 1 and 2. As I understand this, subject to certain conditions, HMRC can recover as late payment interest amounts of repayment interest that have been paid, but which ought not to have been paid. However, this provision does not apply in cases where the whole or part was a result of HMRC error. Therefore, can the Minister please confirm that it is intended that these new paragraphs will have the same effect as those currently set out in section 826(8A) to (8C) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988? I know that these are technical questions but they are important. If we get this wrong, there will be all sorts of chaos within business. Some of the other clauses that I will come to pose even more dangers. Can the Minister also confirm that the latter provisions will be repealed when these new rules come into force?

New paragraphs 3 and 4 of new schedule 54A suggest that where there is an underpayment of corporation tax for one accounting period and an overpayment of corporation tax for another accounting period, neither late payment interest nor repayment interest will arise during a common period. The Institute of Chartered Accountants understands that this provision is intended to give statutory effect to HMRC's existing practice, but I would welcome confirmation of that.

A number of other questions are raised about particular provisions in those schedules and I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that, if there have been errors in drafting, oversight or inconsistencies as a result of what is in this Bill, the Government will table the appropriate amendments in Committee.

I turn now to clause 7, entitled “Settlor to return excess repayment to trustees etc”. Is there not a problem with that because of the change to make trusts pay income tax at 50%? Should the aim of the tax regime for trusts not be to maintain equality between income and gains of trusts and non-trusts? Does not taxing trusts at a 50% rate when the majority of settlors pay tax at other rates cut across that objective?

I understand that the scope of the clause is limited to repayments in respect of trust income deemed to be that of the settlor rather than reductions in the settlor's liability. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister confirm that the settlor need not repay anything to the trustees where the settlor has miscellaneous income losses of his own brought forward which he has to use against the trust income?

There is also a general concern about the costs and administration burden on trustees, settlors and the Revenue in relation to implementing some of the measures in the Bill owing to the large number of tax repayments that now have to be made for small, or indeed very small, amounts, and the need for all settlors to be added into self-assessment. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that. People with no or modest savings or dividend income are in the self-assessment regime, which is complicated and worrying for some people. Even for modest savers, the regime can cost £100 or so for an accountant to prepare a tax return.

Clause 5, “Venture capital schemes”, and paragraphs 1(4) and 2(8) of schedule 2, introduce a “financial health requirement” that prevents tax relief for investment in a firm that is “in difficulty”. The explanatory notes make it clear that the issuing company is in difficulty if it is reasonable to assume that it would be regarded as a firm in difficulty for the purposes of the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. However, the guidelines would appear no longer to have any effect. Paragraph 109 of directive 2004/C244/02 states:

“The Commission will apply these Guidelines with effect from 10 October 2004 until 9 October 2009.”

That implies that the guidelines have now lapsed. Will the Minister clarify whether the guidelines are still effective? Even assuming that they are, it is unclear how they will affect companies raising money under enterprise investment scheme or venture capital trust legislation, because paragraph 9 of the directive guidelines states that

“for the purposes of these Guidelines, the Commission regards a firm as being in difficulty where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its owner/shareholders or creditors, to stem losses which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business”.

The implication is that for as long as the company can raise funds from its existing shareholders or creditors, but presumably not from new, external investors—that is not explicit—it does not fall within the definition of a firm “in difficulty”. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that interpretation is correct.

Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the directive guidelines clarify particular circumstances in which a firm would be regarded as being in financial difficulty, but they appear to be subsidiary to the primary condition—if a company can raise funding from existing shareholders, those paragraphs simply do not come into play. I would like the Minister to confirm whether that interpretation is correct.

The matter gets more complicated, because paragraph 12 of the guidelines states:

“For the purposes of these Guidelines, a newly created firm is not eligible for rescue or restructuring aid even if its initial financial position is insecure. This is the case, for instance, where a new firm emerges from the liquidation of a previous firm or merely takes over such firm’s assets. A firm will in principle be considered as newly created for the first three years following the start of operations in the relevant field of activity. Only after that period will it become eligible for rescue or restructuring aid”.

I understand that in effect, a newly created company would not be regarded as a firm falling foul of the firm-in-difficulty provisions for three years after the commencement of operations. Even if it were, I would welcome clarity on how the measure would apply in a group context. Does the three-year rule apply to a new holding company, operating subsidiary or indeed to the entire group?

On the point in time when the financial health requirement is viewed, proposed new section 108B(1) to the Income Tax Act 2007 states:

“The issuing company must meet the financial health requirement at the beginning of period B”,

which means the period beginning with the date of the issue of the shares. However, it is unclear how the Revenue will approach that in practice. The logical interpretation is that the issue should be considered only when the application for formal EIS approval is made using form EIS 1. It would create considerable difficulties for companies and their advisers if the Revenue could use the benefit of hindsight and withdraw EIS relief retrospectively, after a formal approval is given and certificates issued. It would also ultimately undermine the company’s ability to attract that EIS investment, as there is likely to be considerable uncertainty on whether that relief would be available at all.

There is also a question over the meaning of “permanent establishment” in paragraphs 1(5) and 2(12) of schedule 2. Proposed new section 191A(7) to the 2007 Act states:

“A company is not regarded as having a permanent establishment in the United Kingdom by reason of the fact that it carries on business there through an agent of independent status (including a broker or general commission agent) acting in the ordinary course of the agent’s business.”

The implication is that if a company employee makes sales in the UK on behalf of the company, the company would have a permanent establishment in the UK. However, there appears to be no requirement for that employee to be resident in the UK, and that a visitor carrying on business on behalf of the company would qualify. Will the Minister confirm whether that interpretation is correct?

There are other issues in relation to that proposal. Proposed new section 191A(2)(b) to the 2007 Act states that

“an agent acting on behalf of the company has and habitually exercises there authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the company.”

It has been suggested that for clarity, the definition should follow that already established in the Finance Act 2003, which is that

“an agent acting on behalf of the company has and habitually exercises there authority to do business on behalf of the company.”

I realise that there could be difficulties in respect of groups with a holding company, because the Bill requires the issuing company—the holding company—rather than the subsidiary company that has the trading operation to which VCT or EIS funds will be supplied, to have a “permanent establishment”.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My understanding is that that provision is fairly well understood: “to do business” is a wider phrase than “to enter into contracts”. The “contracts” provision follows the OECD model of tax conventions on “permanent establishment” in a given jurisdiction, and it therefore tracks better the language of international tax law.

[Stewart Hosie]

I understand perfectly well that “to do business” is a better phrase than “to enter into contracts”, but I want the Minister to confirm the nature of the commissioned agent or an employee of the business. They might be based overseas while carrying out business here, and I should like absolute clarity and certainty on that rather than on the wider point on the difference between the phrases “to do business” and “to enter into contracts”. I am with the hon. Gentleman on that.

I am asking that question because as the Minister knows, in many groups, the holding company is a pure holding company, and undertakes no activity other than holding shares in its subsidiaries. My point is that such a company is unlikely to constitute a business as defined in the Bill. Consequently, to require a company to have a “permanent establishment” through which business is carried on or, if the proposed definition is maintained, a

“permanent establishment…to enter into contracts”,

could be seen as running counter to commercial reality. I would welcome further clarification on how such arrangements would be treated for those purposes.

I am dreadfully sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I did not engage in a classic Second Reading debate or address more widely issues that are not in the Bill, but I thought it important for someone actually to ask some specific technical questions to probe the Government on it, rather than indulging in the kind of debate that I am sure we will have on clause stand part later in the Bill’s progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

We have competitive corporation tax. The hon. Gentleman is right that we must play on the global stage. Many of the companies in my constituency that I am talking about play on the global stage. I have seen the difference that other countries have made in working with business to ensure that they invest in their technology, which keeps them here for the long term. Let us consider, for example, the historical difference in the German automotive industry, where the Government did just that. We came very late as a country to that approach—to that industrial activism and to that investment in high-tech industry to secure employment for the long term.

I ask Ministers to consider their role. When we are dealing with global companies, the Government must always discuss with them the changes in their industry and what the next move needs to be in investment. I do not feel that an across-the-board corporation tax that hands profits back without any discussion about what is done with them is the way forward.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the hon. Lady not note with concern that the UK’s high rate of corporation tax, relatively speaking, has caused a whole load of British companies to leave the UK, thus destroying jobs and money?

[Alison McGovern]

I merely disagree on the facts. I disagree that we have had an overly high level of corporation tax and that we have not had inward investment. I would invite the hon. Gentleman to come with me to Vauxhall Motors or Unilever in my constituency, where they have just invested millions of pounds in high-tech kit that means that that research will go on in this country in the long term. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the facts, I do not think that what he says is the case, and I do not think that that is what is happening. There is a risk that it might happen in the future, unless the Government show an active approach to working with businesses to ensure that they have the right incentives to stay and invest in Britain.

In conclusion, I have three points that I ask the Government to take into account. I ask them to consider, on an ongoing basis, the effectiveness of HMRC and whether the resources allocated are enough to bring in the necessary taxes to bring the budget further towards balance. I question what more they can do to promote real growth and the rebalancing of our economy. I worry about the effect of the VAT rise on those people who are least able to cope with it and that that will yet again distort the economy in Britain. Our economy actually operates very differently in different geographical areas. I do not mean to point out a north-south divide, because parts of the south-west are likely to suffer in similar ways to my area. We need to be careful at this important time. Much can be done to work with businesses and assist them in making investments, and I hope that the Government will consider that as the Bill goes forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) on a speech that was excellently delivered and every word of which I agreed with. It was a fine maiden speech and a pleasure to listen to.

I also welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) to his new position. His speeches are in a somewhat different category, in that I always enjoy them but never agree with them. It is nevertheless a pleasure to see him in his place as his contributions in earlier debates were all listened to with bated breath, not least as we waited to intervene on some telling point.

This is a good and worthy Bill that is, perhaps, typical of the workmanlike approach that the coalition Government are taking to the difficult matters at hand to ensure that government is done fairly, justly and properly. In that context, it is interesting to look at the issue that was raised by the shadow Chief Secretary about the morality of taxation and whether it is moral, in one sense or another, to avoid taxation. We should be careful about eliding “avoid” and “evade”. The two are clearly different things, and this Bill exemplifies why that is so.

The Bill will relieve the taxpayer of burdens that Parliament probably never intended to place on them. For example, did we really want to have a special taxation for merchant seamen who are within the European economic area, as against those who are British subjects? Or was it an accidental result of historical legislation that meant that EEA citizens were caught in a way that the British subjects were not? As it happens, it is right and proper that Parliament should legislate to take people out of a tax that is misplaced, and it is equally right and proper that Parliament should legislate when it wants to bring people into a tax that it has not legislated for in the past.

The famous exponent of this was, of course, Lord Tomlin. In 1936, in a case brought by the Inland Revenue commissioners against the Duke of Westminster, Lord Tomlin said:

“Every man is entitled if he can to arrange his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure that result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax”.

That is why it is so important that we have these detailed pieces of legislation coming through, because when we look at the length of a cigarette, which is dealt with in clause 23, and whether it should be 3 inches or 4 inches—the measurements are all in centimetres, but being British, I shall stick to inches—and therefore be taxed differently, is that an issue of great, high morals, that should be referred to the College of Cardinals for debate, to decide which is one and which is the other? Or is it, in fact, a detailed point of law that is quite rightly passed by this House, so that taxpayers will know exactly where they stand? If we take an aircraft that weighs more than 8 tonnes—I shall not convert that into hundredweight, but I am sure that some will want to—should it be specially subject to value added tax, or should it not? Again, it seems quite clear to me that that is an appropriate matter for detailed legislation. The taxpayer who follows the letter of the law is never doing anything either wrong or immoral, and people who seek to try to confuse the two at seaside party conference are making a great error and doing a great unfairness to the British subject who is doing his best in an immensely complex area.

There is one other thing from this Bill that I would like to note, which is that clauses 5, 6, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are, in whole or in part, requirements of the European Union. I mention that so that this House notes that we are perhaps not quite as free as we think we are to set our own tax rates, and that there is creeping Europeanisation. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is in his place. He is, in his port, at the forefront of our protection from creeping Europeanisation coming across our shores—this creeping Europeanisation that makes up almost a third of the Bill.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous comments about our desire to buy our port. As far as Europe is concerned, does he not agree that it would be better if we were more masters and captains in the ships of our national destiny?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is put in an appropriately Nelsonian way. Of course we should sail the ship of state independently. It is important that so much of our domestic law is, in fact, coming from Europe, including our tax law, because that is the one thing that many people thought was broadly exempt from the interference of—

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who spoke in the most heartfelt way about his heartbreakingly lovely and beautiful constituency and in the most thoughtful and considered way about the impact of regulation on smaller businesses. I also wish to congratulate the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury on her elevation and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on returning to the Front Bench, even if it is not the Front Bench that he would have preferred to be on—no doubt he is a patient man who will wait to have another go in due course.

This Budget, with this Finance Bill, is an essential piece of legislation. We have a country that is all but bust; its budget deficit is more than £150 billion and we face a structural deficit of £109 billion, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. What does that tell us? It tells us that two thirds of the current extra borrowing each year has nothing to do with the recession and the global financial crisis, and has everything to do with the economic incompetence of the previous Government. The Leader of the Opposition urges that instead of adopting a fiscal position of raising taxes by one third and cutting spending by two thirds, we should make it 50:50. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) has calculated that that would raise people’s taxes by another £1,300. Such a massive bombshell would not be constructive in this difficult fiscal environment. The Government have taken difficult decisions on taxes, but the further tax rises that the Opposition urge on us are not at all responsible or helpful.

It is therefore right that the coalition is taking the economically responsible and sensible position to step right and stabilise our country and its finances, but we need to have growth and a growth agenda. It is helpful that corporation tax is being reduced to 24% over the next few years, and I hope that in time the Government will be able to go further and bring it down to about 19%. I hope that they will give serious and substantial consideration to a holding company regime such as exists in places such as the Netherlands and Luxembourg, so that the UK becomes a holding company international headquarters of the European time zone. The UK and London, rather than the continent itself, would thus become the jumping off point for Americans investing in Europe, which would provide a massive fiscal stimulus to the UK economy and would make it the financial headquarters centre and the international business centre of the European time zone. We should be very alive to the competitive fight that we have with our European friends, and seek to maximise our position and that of London as the international financial and business centre of this time zone.

We may get a fiscal bounce out of encouraging large businesses to move to this country, set up here and stay here—I note that WPP and Hiscox have left and moved overseas, as have others—but if we want long-term sustainable development and growth, and more jobs and money over the longer term, we need to consider smaller business, because it has a stronger sense of growth over the long term and it supplies the entrepreneurial flair that creates more jobs and money.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I entirely accept the need to sustain small businesses, but small businesses live off two things: first, big businesses, which make orders for them; and, secondly, demand in the economy, as we go for meals out, get building alterations done to our homes and so on. If people are not spending because they are frightened of losing their jobs and having their pensions and benefits cut, that damages small businesses at least as much as it does big businesses.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that confidence plays a massive role in our economy—and nowhere more so than with our smaller businesses. The confidence that we have seen since the election seems to be feeding through to the growth figures, which seem to suggest that we are coming out of the recession faster than anyone thought we would. Personally, I think we should be more positive about the prospects for the economy and the prospects for faster growth over the medium term, given the nature of the stabilisation and the confidence that the coalition Government have provided to the country. However, that does not mean that there is not more we can do for small businesses. We can and must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) and others have said, have more liquidity for the small business sector. It has been too locked up in banks preparing their balance sheets—we need more lending.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a reduction in corporation tax is a way to encourage more small businesses and to keep big business in the United Kingdom, and that it will help the overall long-term growth of our economy?

[Charlie Elphicke]

Absolutely, yes. The previous Government were planning to increase corporation tax on smaller businesses and to do nothing for larger businesses. The reduction in corporation tax that we are seeing across the board is an incredibly positive move by the coalition Government that will help to create more jobs and money and help to encourage businesses—international businesses in particular—to set up in the UK.

We need more liquidity for smaller businesses, but we also need tax reform for smaller businesses. Earlier today, I met the Quoted Companies Alliance, which represents smaller quoted companies. It put to me the suggestion that we should perhaps think harder about the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trust regimes. They are limited at about 50 employees, but EU state aid approval would be allowable for fewer than 250 employees under the EU SME definition. I hope that Ministers will consider that in due course and in further Finance Bills. There is a negative effect on businesses because they dare not grow over 50 employees. That is quite important.

The QCA says that the connected company or connected person regime should be considered, because business angels could be effective and useful directors and advisers to those businesses. The alliance also says that it would be better to have lighter-touch regulation. It would concede the income tax relief if it would help to keep the capital gains tax relief and increase the limits and thresholds available in the EIS and VCT regimes. I hope that Ministers will consider that and will consider the technical detail that will help to improve things for the smaller business sector.

On CGT, the alliance welcomes the entrepreneurs’ relief—it says that that is great—but asks why it lasts for only 12 months. Does that not encourage speculators? Should it not be for three or four years, to encourage long-term investment? Should it be restricted just to those who have 5% and are employees or should it perhaps involve those who have 5% or who are employees, to widen the investment base for smaller businesses that benefit from entrepreneurs’ relief? I hope that Ministers will also consider reinvestment relief when entrepreneurs come up with wonderful ideas, sell their businesses and reinvest. Perhaps they should be encouraged to do so with a wider base of reinvestment relief, to lock in more capital and investment, which will create more jobs and money over the longer term. I recognise that these are ideas to be developed in further Finance Bills, but I hope that Ministers and the Government will give them due consideration as time passes.

The other question the alliance raises is why we do not allow AIM shares to be put into individual savings accounts. That seems to make little sense. The AIM market has changed massively since the late ’90s and it would perhaps be constructive to allow AIM company shares to be in ISAs so as to widen the investment pool and widen the availability of capital to businesses that are typically smaller in nature and faster growing.

Finally, although the London stock exchange has said for a long time that we should have got rid of the stamp duty reserve tax, which is difficult to afford in the current circumstances, the QCA asks the interesting question: what would happen if we allowed getting rid of SDRT outside the FTSE 350 for smaller companies, to help to make their shares more liquid? Trading volumes would be lower and it might be more affordable. I hope that that is something to which Ministers will give due consideration and thought in future Finance Bills.

The most important thing for our country and our countrymen is to have more jobs and more money. I hope that over time we will develop a further growth agenda and deepen the one that we have already put forward, so that we can have faster structural trend growth and the UK can become the envy of not just our friends in the European Union but the world as a whole.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

That is an important point, but we also need to consider other factors such as the general state of the public finances and the other demands on public money in the spending review. We must also recognise that the Government have decided to introduce radical reform of financial regulation and to improve the regulation of retail financial services through the establishment of the consumer protection and markets authority. We can take a range of measures to help restore long-term confidence in savings, and people will have confidence in saving for the future if they recognise that the economy is on a stable footing, that we have got public spending under control and that we are tackling the deficit and keeping interest rates reasonable for as long as possible.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I understand my hon. Friend’s desire to get full and final closure, but the consensus at a packed public meeting of my constituents in Dover and Deal was that it would be better to have staged payments over a number of years if affordability was a problem right now. Will he consider that very seriously?

[Mr Hoban]

I discussed that idea, but I received a strong representation from Equitable Life advising against it, because of the complexity that might be attached to staged payments. Some have suggested that we make payments into people’s pension funds, but some of the key criteria for judging the payments scheme will be simplicity, speed and transparency. People will be concerned that a series of small payments over a long period will not necessarily meet the simplicity, speed and transparency criteria against which a payments scheme ought to be judged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

No, the position we are in now is that there are two quite different ways forward. One was recommended by the ombudsman. The previous Government saw some serious difficulties in that approach, so called on Sir John Chadwick to give advice. The Government now need to choose which of those two options they intend to follow. Their difficulty is that every Treasury Minister—including all those I have mentioned—has pledged to adopt the ombudsman’s approach. The Government are currently saying both that they accept the ombudsman’s recommendation in full, and that Sir John Chadwick’s report is a building block for what is going to happen. Nobody knows what that means, however, as it is trying to ride two horses, when what is required is a decision.

[Charlie Elphicke]

As a member of the Select Committee on Public Administration, I know that we will take evidence from the ombudsman in due course. Can the right hon. Gentleman help me and the House by explaining what in his mind’s eye were the “serious difficulties” with the ombudsman’s report that he mentioned?

[Stephen Timms]

I will come to that in a few moments. There are some serious problems with the complexity of the procedure recommended. That is why, I think, the Government have realised that what they said before the election will not be honoured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her excellent maiden speech. I have subsequently spent much of the debate dreaming of Sandbach.

I recently held a public meeting in east Kent for my constituents in Dover and Deal, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and her constituents in Sandwich, Ramsgate, Broadstairs and other parts of her constituency. It was a lively meeting, and I undertook to report to the House the representations that were made to us. There were three clear positions that the Equitable Life victims wanted me to communicate.

The first was that the Chadwick report is not a sound basis for compensation, and that the contributory negligence concept implicit in it is entirely rejected. The second was that the ombudsman’s recommendations should be implemented, even if over a number of years with staged payments. The third was that payments should commence as soon as possible. For my part, I would like to say how sorry I am that the victims have been treated so badly for so long. I welcome the Bill, the compensation scheme and the action that is being taken.

[Guy Opperman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in these circumstances, an oral debate and a staggered system of intervention are two of the best ways ahead?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. More than that, I urge Ministers to consider carefully a more generous compensation scheme than that recommended by the Chadwick report. I also urge them to consider making staged payments over some years, given the current pressure on the public finances as the nation today stands pretty much bankrupt. I hope that Ministers will give those points careful consideration when they bring forward the detail of the compensation package.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This has been a most interesting debate with very important contributions from many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made an excellent maiden speech. She gave a poetic description of the beauty of her constituency and, just for a second, all of us who heard her were transported back up to the north. She made the people of her constituency sound almost as good as the people of Harrow West. It was a pleasure to listen to her speech.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton), for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) all made strong speeches on behalf of their constituents. It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to praise in particular the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East in jointly chairing the all-party group on Equitable Life policyholders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras made the telling point that his general election opponents—like, I suspect, the opponents of all Opposition Members—did not mention any caveats when they signed the Equitable Life pledge in the run-up to 6 May.

To be fair, we also heard passionate speeches on behalf of their constituents from the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), for Angus (Mr Weir), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), for South Down (Ms Ritchie), for Witham (Priti Patel), for Worcester (Mr Walker), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), for Redditch (Karen Lumley), for Macclesfield (David Rutley), for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for Central Devon (Mel Stride), for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for Warrington South (David Mowat), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Wells (Tessa Munt), for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), for Wycombe (Steve Baker), for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is my constituency neighbour, for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom).

It was striking how much concern was expressed by those on both sides of the House about the lack of clarity in the Government’s position, with every Member noting the very big gap between the Chadwick approach and the ombudsman’s approach—albeit, I accept, that some did so very directly, while others did so with some sound and fury directed at those on the Opposition Benches. Members also noted the very different impression that Equitable Life policyholders are getting about the stance of Government Front-Bench Members now and that which they adopted before the general election.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said, we welcome the Bill and we will not oppose it, but we will seek to amend it in Committee, and we will want to probe the Government’s plans further. The Bill provides no detail on the criteria under which payments will be made, so we are no further forward in knowing what Equitable Life policyholders will get. No provision has been made for the independence of the compensation scheme to be established on a statutory basis. The Bill does nothing to ensure an independent appeal process for those who feel they have been unfairly treated—a point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and the hon. Member for Harrow East. There is also still no clear timetable governing when payments are to be made. The Bill makes no mention of the work of the independent commission. We will want to explore further in Committee how the commission is working.

I recognise that there are two serious tensions between the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, but I was surprised to learn that the Financial Secretary has not resolved whether means-tested benefits will be affected by any compensation that Equitable Life policyholders on such support receive. Equitable Life policyholders on such means-tested support will now be worried that they will be hit by coming benefit cuts and then hit again because of any compensation they might get. I hope that when the Economic Secretary replies she is able to offer some further clarity, and we will certainly want to explore this matter in Committee.

What was most striking about the Financial Secretary’s opening speech was the absence of any effort to resolve the lack of clarity about whether he favours Sir John Chadwick’s approach or the ombudsman’s approach. The manifestos of the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat partners, and also the coalition agreement document, appeared to be clear. The Conservative party said:

“We will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation”

So the ombudsman’s recommendation was clearly mentioned there, and it was referenced yet again in the coalition agreement document, which committed both parties to “implement” the parliamentary “Ombudsman’s recommendation”. Even though the parliamentary ombudsman has been crystal clear in her profound disagreement with what Sir John Chadwick has recommended, the Minister notably did not clear up whether he agreed with her assessment of the Chadwick proposals as

“an unsafe and unsound basis on which to proceed.”

We now have a clear assessment of the estimated scale of relative loss, yet clear hints have also been given that the total payout will be very much less than those estimates. EMAG, which was rightly praised by those on both sides of the House, for the skill and persistence with which it has campaigned on this issue, invited candidates to sign its pledge and

“support and vote for proper compensation”.

Crucially, it said that that was to be as

“recommended by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.”

As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham said, every Treasury Minister signed that pledge and every one of them would have known then that they were committing themselves to a far higher figure than the sums now being suggested as a result of Sir John Chadwick’s conclusions.

In case there were any doubts, EMAG went out of its way, in the run-up to the election, to sweep away the possibility of confusion by making it very clear that it did not accept Sir John Chadwick’s work and wanted candidates to champion the ombudsman’s approach, which offered very different financial costs and scheme details from those that Sir John’s work would produce. Like the Grand Old Duke of York, the parties opposite have marched the Equitable Life victims up the hill only, once the election was over, to march them promptly back down again. Their hopes and expectations so cunningly built up before the election have been crushed in an exercise that, by any definition, looks breathtakingly cynical.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Speaking of breathtaking cynicism, it ill behoves the shadow Minister to offer thruppence and criticise others who offer sixpence or more.