Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We are cautious about that because, as a Labour spokesman in the House of Lords said in 2010:

“the OBR should not become embroiled in political controversy.”

I understand that the Labour party is seeking ways to improve its economic credibility. I suggest that a better, more obvious approach would be to change the shadow Chancellor.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we are all indebted to the shadow Chancellor for this idea and so much more, the OBR is working well and should not become a political football or controversial?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The OBR is a very good change—one that I am pleased has finally won support across the House—and we do not want to jeopardise its credibility or reputation.

Autumn Statement

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am happy to look further at the hon. Gentleman’s point. The rules on pension protection and the pensions regulator are designed to prevent people from deliberately crashing their pension scheme to avoid their liabilities, and for those liabilities to fall on to the state or other companies. I am happy to look at any specific case he has. On his broader point on the economy, unemployment has come down by 11% in his constituency. The measures I announced today—abolishing the jobs tax for young people and the £1,000 discount for shops, cafés and pubs on the high street—are all designed to help small businesses, which are the engine of any recovery.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I welcome the investment in infrastructure, particularly flood defences? In east Kent in the next 24 hours, we face a difficult time and the investment in the flood defences in the town of Deal, which I represent, will help to keep the town more secure than it otherwise would have been.

[Mr Osborne]

I, with my hon. Friend, wish the people of Dover and Deal the best as they endure this difficult weather. I join him in praising the emergency services who will help people in that area through this difficult time. The flood defences in Deal will mean that such areas are better protected from adverse weather. The only way to afford such schemes is by controlling public spending and putting it into priority areas.

Cost of Living

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

That is a good point, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will be brief in talking about the hon. Member for Spelthorne and the Free Enterprise Group. The Free Enterprise Group published plans to slap a 15% increase on essentials such as food and children’s clothes through VAT and to triple the tax on heating bills. A number of hon. Members who are in the Chamber today are members of the Free Enterprise Group. They might be shuffling away from the hon. Member for Spelthorne now.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to account for that plan. Does he agree with charging VAT at 15% on food and children’s clothes and increasing the tax on heating bills—yes or no?

[Charlie Elphicke]

What was the size of the deficit at the time of the general election in 2010? Was it £150 billion-plus—yes or no?

[Chris Leslie]

There is no answer to my question from the hon. Gentleman. I have given him the figures for the national debt.

The extremism and rightwards shift in the Conservative party are visible for all to see. As we can tell from the tactics that they are using, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and all the Conservative Back Benchers are scraping the barnacles off the 1992 election strategy. They have a barely disguised plan to fight the next election in the gutter. Their tactics are visible for all to see.

The Prime Minister once spoke fondly of environmentalism while hugging the huskies. Perhaps I should ask this on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, but is it using unparliamentary language to quote No. 10 when it allegedly said that it wanted to cut out all of the “green crap”? I know that that is appalling language, but it is a quotation from No. 10 Downing street. The Government are certainly cutting some things out: 578 Sure Start children’s centres have been cut, 76 NHS walk-in centres have been cut, 48 accident and emergency departments have been shut, 200 ambulance stations have been axed and 6,000 nurses have gone from the NHS, but 707 food banks have opened. Perhaps Government Members regard that as a success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He reminds the House that the previous Government began running a deficit from 2001, way before any financial crisis. They ran a structural deficit from 2006 onwards. Hon. Members will remember that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), tried to deny that until he was corrected by the International Monetary Fund.

Without a credible economic plan, we cannot have a plan for helping families with living standards challenges. Anyone, including the Labour party, can come up with a list of interventions, but they are completely meaningless and unsustainable if there is no long-term economic plan to back them up. Labour’s only plan is for more spending, more borrowing and more debt, which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I have a deep concern that many hard-working people lost earnings when interest was suspended on Co-op bonds in March. I am concerned that, 11 days later, it lent substantial amounts of money to the Labour party. Will the inquiry cover the bank’s relationship with the Co-operative party and whether the bank was unduly influenced by the national executive committee?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend raises a good point, but he will know that I am not in the best position to answer his question in detail. Perhaps the shadow Chief Secretary will rise to his feet to do so. I understand that he is a Labour and Co-operative Member and receives money from the Co-op. I am happy to give way if he would like to answer the question.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She makes an important point that applies to both businesses and charities. Taking on the first member of staff can be the most difficult step, as it is a big event for a business. If we are able to help and to reform our tax system to enable businesses or charities to take that member of staff on without paying the jobs tax—employer’s national insurance contributions—that will clearly encourage those businesses, which, I hope, will then take on further staff and expand.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the measure was the largest tax cut in the Budget? Does he therefore not think it is all the more surprising that there are no Labour Members here to scrutinise a major plank of that Budget?

[Mr Gauke]

Another observation one could make is that there are no Labour Members of Parliament here because they are—[Interruption.] I apologise. That remark is unfair and I withdraw it. There are the Labour Front Benchers and now three Back Benchers. Who knows? We might reach five or six by the end of the debate. Perhaps Labour Members have confidence in, and enthusiasm for, the Bill and can find nothing to criticise. However, we look forward to the speeches to come later. On that note, as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has waited so patiently, and as it is about time that we heard from a Labour Member, I give way to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The striking point about the most recent growth numbers is that they demonstrate growth in every sector, and that is very encouraging. I began by saying that the economy in the mid-2000s, say, was very dependent on financial services and on London and the south-east. Of course we want a successful financial services sector and we want London and the south-east to do well, but it is also important that growth is better balanced throughout the United Kingdom, and the Government continue that commitment.

[Charlie Elphicke]

While hesitating to introduce any controversy into the debate, does my hon. Friend agree that the hikes in the jobs tax under the previous Government destroyed jobs, and that this Government’s policy of reducing the jobs tax, particularly in this Bill, will enhance job creation and aid the recovery?

[Mr Gauke]

I do agree. Given that we want to increase employment, it would not have been sensible to undertake the increase in national insurance contributions that the previous Government intended. That was clearly a mistake. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to know that not only are he and I in agreement but Tony Blair said last week that he thought it was a mistake.

Living Standards

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

What would that community feel about a Government who left a deficit of 11.8% of GDP? This Government have reduced it by a third, to 7.4%, although there is still a long way to go. More than any community, that community would understand the importance of living within one’s means. We need to judge the Government by their track record, compared with the previous Government.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The issue is not just the deficit. Real earnings did not rise from 2004 onwards under the previous Government’s mismanagement. We still see the scars of the terrible recession of 2008 in the earnings lag, which continues to this day and which we are battling to turn around.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I agree, so let us turn to the track record of what we have tried to do in government to tackle the very issues raised in today’s debate. We all want to see our constituents prosper and have more money each month to pay their bills. The most important bill that they have to pay each month—on pain of imprisonment if they do not pay it—is their income tax bill. In 2007, people had to start paying income tax once their income rose to just over £5,000. By the end of the next tax year, people will be able to take home £10,000 before they have to pay income tax. That is a halving of the income tax bill for the hard-working person who works full time on the minimum wage. It is also a 20% real-terms reduction in the tax bill of someone on median income. That is the action that a responsible Government can take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who have both made thoughtful contributions to the debate. It is a great shame that more Members are not present on the Government Benches. We seem to be running out of speakers rather early, which speaks volumes.

The Conservative Government seem quite happy to crow at great length about how well the economy is doing, but they seem to take very little interest in the question of living standards. They crow about how well the economy is doing, we hear a great deal of briefing on the subject and we endure a great deal at Prime Minister’s questions, but the truth is that no one believes them. That is because people’s lives do not reflect a growth in the economy. For ordinary people, life is getting harder, not better. People do not believe that next year is going to be better than this year; they believe that it is going to be harder. And I am afraid that, at the moment, it looks as though they are right.

That is partly because services are being cut. It is partly because people are having to queue to see their GP. It is also harder for older people to get social care or to see a consultant. After-school clubs are being cut, youth groups are being closed and there are restricted hours for day centres. Life is also more difficult for people because they no longer have access to the kinds of services that they have been taking for granted, which are being cut by the Government. Primarily, however, life is harder because people feel that their wages and benefits are not keeping up with inflation. The reason for that is that they are not: they are not keeping up by a long chalk.

Those people who are lucky enough to be in work are often not working sufficient hours. They might be working for their poverty, but they are not earning enough to be able to rely on their own wages. They also have to rely on benefits and tax credits. Many of those on low wages who work full time also have to rely on benefits and tax credits, especially in areas such as the one I represent. In central London, it is simply not possible to live on the average wage without relying on benefits to help to pay the rent and to help with child care costs.

Much has been said about what a great idea universal credit is, and about how we should have one level of benefits for everyone across the country, including those in central London. No allowance is made for the fact that rents and child care costs are so much higher in areas such as this. People on average wages in central London rely on benefits too. That is the truth, and if universal credit is introduced in the way the Government propose, I do not know what is going to happen to those people.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady is making a sincere and heartfelt speech, but the difficulty is that every prescription from Labour involves more spending and more welfare. The effect of that would be to drive up interest rates, which would harm the recovery and harm the job creation that could lead to increased wages and a strengthened recovery. The polls show that that is not a prescription that this country finds credible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Any increase in employment is to be welcomed, but the real story of the labour market is a living standards crisis, with falling real wages and millions working harder for less. I know that from the experiences in my constituency. We have heard complacency from the Government today. They say that they have fixed the economy, but for ordinary families we know that things are getting harder, not easier. Ministers just sound out of touch when they ignore the fact that the number of people who are working part time because they cannot find a full-time job is at record level.

Real wages are falling: wages increased by 0.6% on the year to June, while the retail prices index increased by 3.3%, over five times the pace of wage growth. OBR forecasts show that, after inflation, wages are set to be £1,520 lower in 2015 than they were in 2010. That means that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) told the Prime Minister today, ordinary working people will have lost, on average, £6,660 on this Government’s watch. That is a shameful record.

Underemployment is a massive and growing problem for millions of families already feeling the pinch from rising prices and falling wages. More than one in 10 people are now unable to work the hours they would like because this Government strangled the recovery for three years. Today we have heard complacent, boastful comments from the Government, delighted that there is, at last, a slight upturn in the economy. Let us not forget, though, that for three years, having inherited a growing economy, they flattened that growth and people across this country suffered for three years.

The Government and the Prime Minister are out of touch in not understanding that very many people not only work part time but often work on zero-hours contracts. They find themselves working through agencies and are often exploited. People in my constituency have told me about their experience of these zero-hours contracts—of turning up for work only to be told that there is no work that day, yet they might have arranged child care or had to pay considerable transport costs to get to work, or working for half a shift and then being told that they are no longer needed that day. That is no way for businesses to treat their employees, but it is also no way for a Government to behave when they turn a blind eye to the growth of that practice in our economy.

People have told me about not being able to get a mortgage, car finance or a bank overdraft, or even a rental agreement, because they cannot clearly demonstrate that they will have money coming in over the weeks and months ahead.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Sawford]

No. I know that two of my colleagues want to speak, so I am going to push on.

Seventy per cent. of zero-hours contracts are for permanent jobs. How can it be right that someone in a permanent job is not given a permanent and proper contract of employment? More than 80% of people on zero-hours contracts are not looking for another job. They want to remain in employment, but they want it to be fair and secure. Resolution Foundation research shows that those employed on zero-hours contracts receive lower gross weekly pay and that workplaces utilising zero-hours contracts have a higher proportion of staff on low pay. In my constituency zero-hours contracts, combined with the very high number of people working through agencies, have created a two-tier work force, with permanent employees often being paid better and having security of employment while many other workers are being paid very low wages and exploited from week to week.

There is an argument that zero-hours contracts offer flexibility. Of course, casual employment has always been part of the labour market, including casual employment where there are no guaranteed hours. I have worked under those conditions and other people do so too. For example, Corby borough council employs lifeguards at the local swimming pool on such casual contracts; of course, it is seasonal work and there are changes in demand over the course of the year. When I talk about zero-hours exploitation, I do not mean all casual employment in the economy. The local Tories in Corby have got themselves into an extraordinary position, saying that my local council should end all casual employment. That is completely bizarre. It has been suggested that it is hypocritical of me, as a Co-op Member, to highlight this issue and campaign against zero-hours exploitation because across the country the 2% of workers the Co-op employs in its funeral business are mainly retained firefighters or semi-retired people. It is a ridiculous suggestion.

Most people understand that some casual employment works for some people, but the key is that it should be reciprocal and fair. That is why I have introduced a Bill that aims to tackle zero-hours exploitation. I want to see what legal changes we can make to help people, particularly by ending things such as exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts.

I am delighted that the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), has really taken a lead on this issue. Just a few weeks ago, he held a summit bringing together employers and people who are concerned about it. I welcome the support of many organisations in civil society—trade unions and organisations such as Citizens Advice—in trying to tackle it. However, it is not achieved only through legislation; this Government should act, and the Business Secretary’s review should have more resources put behind it. We should try, through public procurement, to encourage Government and local government to stop using zero-hours contracts as far as possible.

Corporate Structures and Financial Crime

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for persuading the Backbench Business Committee to hold it. I am extremely concerned, as are all hon. Members, about the morality of cheating in the tax system and, as my hon. Friend said, the economic distortions it creates.

Ordinary small and medium-sized enterprises cannot cheat in that way, and the collapse in the high street is being exacerbated by the tax advantages enjoyed by the internet companies that facilitate online shopping. Indeed, the international internet companies are among the most significant offenders when it comes to tax avoidance. Their business model is built on an apparently free offer to consumers, but the services are paid for by advertising, which is targeted through the collection of personal data from consumers based on the cookie system. I have secured a separate debate in a fortnight’s time on the internet companies’ use of personal data. Today I wish to say something about their business model and its implications.

A Public Accounts Committee report found that between 2006 and 2011, Google paid the equivalent of $16 million in income tax in this country on revenues estimated at $18 billion. It claimed that advertising sales were being made in Ireland, when in fact the two contracting parties were in the UK.

Facebook, another US-based company, has 33 million users in the UK, with 25 million people visiting the site each day. Its revenues from advertising are estimated at around £170 million a year, but last year it reported sales of only £20.4 million. Using that figure for its sales, it reported a pre-tax loss of £13.9 million in 2011, enabling it to pay just £238,000 in tax last year. The position with Twitter is even worse, if that is possible to imagine. It did not even submit any accounts last year.

I want to set the behaviour of those companies, in relation to their corporate structures and tax performances, in the context of the cost to society and the public purse that they are creating. Everyone agrees that online child abuse is a serious crime. We in Parliament, the public and the industry are committed to its eradication. The Internet Watch Foundation is a fantastic organisation that takes down sites that carry child abuse images. It is a membership organisation for the industry, so we were all shocked to hear of the very small contributions that the industrialists were making to its work. Until a month ago, Google was donating £20,000 to the Internet Watch Foundation. In recent weeks, it has upped its contribution to £250,000 a year for four years, and the other media organisations have collectively offered a further £250,000 a year for the same period. I learned this week that Facebook makes a contribution of only £10,000 a year.

The problem with that is that the Internet Watch Foundation is hugely strapped for cash and unable to deal with all the alerts it receives. It is worried, because a survey that it undertook has suggested that, although 1.5 million people have seen child abuse images, only 40,000 reports have been made to the organisation. It is calling on the public to report more, in the interests of child protection, but it requires more resources to enable it to respond. Furthermore, once members of the public start to respond, they are not going to be able to distinguish between the different categories of image—illegal, obscene and indecent—and they will report everything that disgusts them.

We have a similar situation with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre—CEOP—which is the part of the police force that deals with these issues. It believes that 60,000 people in this country are downloading child abuse images, yet its resources are so limited that it was able to secure only 1,570 convictions last year. At the same time, the companies that distribute that material are not paying the taxes that would help properly to resource the police. I have met representatives of those companies and written to Ministers about these issues. I am still waiting for a reply from Ministers.

Returning to the business model that Facebook uses to generate its revenues, I want to explain a further connection between the two kinds of crime. A whistleblower recently informed us that advertisements were appearing alongside the indecent images of children. They were advertising the services of a large number of household-name companies, including PayPal, John Lewis, Procter & Gamble, EE, Hewlett Packard, Betfred, Bing, Johnson & Johnson, Google, BSkyB and Western Union. Facebook has now agreed to do a manual sweep to remove the advertisements from the sites, because the advertisers do not want to finance them and do not want to be seen to finance them. It would be helpful if we had public statements from those companies on their views on that, and on whether they are happy to have so much advertising being channelled to other organisations that are not paying their proper taxes.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I might have misheard her, but it sounded to me as if the hon. Lady was making serious allegations about John Lewis. Will she please reconfirm them for the benefit of Government Members?

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Helen Goodman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me respond to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). The companies that I listed have been inadvertently caught up in financing in this particular way, but the question for them is whether they have made it clear, publicly, that they do not wish to be financing the distribution.

In response to your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, the problem is that we have a system through which money is hoovered up in one way and can then be used to finance any other kind of crime—the crimes that I have described, but also those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. What we do not have from these organisations is any proper accountability that would allow us to get to the bottom of the issues and tackle them properly. It is extremely problematic that we do not have international agreements about how to deal with these internet companies when it comes to their taxes and their other behaviour. Although it is true that tax avoidance is a scourge and tax evasion is a crime, the industry’s use of these sites helps to promote other kinds of crime. I believe that there is a serious cultural issue about these companies that must be addressed.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. I have used privilege in this place to name and shame financial wickedness and, indeed, industrial scale tax avoidance. I have always done so, however, in an attempt to provide evidence. The hon. Lady has made some serious allegations in respect of which I am concerned she has not provided us with any evidence.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that a whistleblower showed me a large number of pages on which I saw some of these advertisements. The point I am trying to make to him is that the companies are inadvertently drawn into this through the targeting and retargeting of advertisements. Their money is being used to finance the internet companies according to the business model that operates, so if they do not want to be involved, they must take steps to avoid doing so.

To offer the hon. Member for Dover some comfort, Marks & Spencer, for example, took the view that it really wanted action to be taken—and it took it publicly, which had a tremendous impact on Facebook and on what Facebook was doing. The other companies have not yet come out as clearly as Marks & Spencer did.

I had better not speak for too long. This is an important debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw for opening it up. I am very concerned, however, about what the debate is uncovering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) not only for obtaining the debate and for making another strong speech on the subject, but in particular for his relentless campaigning on the issue of financial crime in all its forms, including money laundering, tax avoidance and evasion. That is what I want to concentrate on.

As the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) said, at the G8 summit, the Prime Minister made a great media blitz of his supposed crackdown on corporate tax avoidance. He tried to get UK-controlled tax havens to sign up to an OECD agreement on providing tax information. He also tried to secure a worldwide standard on automatic tax information transfer, to get the G8 countries to reveal the identity of shell companies and to help developing countries to get their rightful entitlement to tax. All those are extremely worthy objectives and no one in the House would demur from any of them, but all he achieved—it is achievement, rather than aspiration, that matters when one is Prime Minister—was a bland statement in favour of the principle of tax information transfer, without any actual means of enforcement.

The Prime Minister defended that feeble result by claiming that little can be done without international agreement and that it takes time to build that, but that is not true. Of course the best result would be an internationally agreed set of rules, but even in the absence of that there is a great deal that Britain can and should do. First, as a number of Members have said, the UK controls 10 Crown dependencies and overseas territories, which collectively embrace over one fifth, I think, of all the world’s tax havens. Most of them have signed up in principle—[Interruption.] Well, we shall see, but they have certainly signed up to the proposal for tax information exchange, and it is now within the purview of the British Government to enforce that proposal, if there is any reneging or backsliding, by the simple expedient of refusing to recognise any financial transactions emanating from those areas if there is any failure to secure full compliance.

That will generate a great deal of resistance, not least from the tax havens themselves, but also I suspect particularly from the big UK banks, which are the main users of these tax haven facilities. Since the Tory party continues to get more than half of its income every year from the banks—[Interruption.] There is no need to roll the eyes or shake the head, as that is an important fact, so facing down the banks on this important issue will test the Government’s resolve.

I therefore want to ask the Minister the following question, which I hope he will answer: will he assure the House that the Government will enforce these tax information exchanges with the tax havens they control? I agree he cannot do that without international agreement in the other havens, but he can control these ones. Alternatively, are we simply going to find that the Prime Minister’s fine words, which we all agree about, will just fade away in a puff of smoke after he has had his PR day in the sun?

What makes the Chancellor’s remonstrations about tax avoidance being immoral seem perverse is that he himself has now emerged as the arch proponent of tax avoidance. He is changing the controlled foreign company rules from 1 January next year to allow any multinational company with a subsidiary in a tax haven—and as the Minister knows very well, 98% of those companies do have a subsidiary in a tax haven—to reduce their corporation tax liability from 23% to a mere 5.5%. Given the boast of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor about cracking down hard on corporation tax avoidance, that is breathtaking hypocrisy. The message is, “Don’t worry about artificial tax avoidance. You needn’t do anything about that, because I am going to serve it up to you on a plate.”

Then the Government went even further. They have put forward the pro-tax avoidance proposal of the patent box, a wheeze whereby any patented process applying to any part of an enterprise, however trivial or minor, not only secures a reduction in corporation tax to 10%, but applies to the entire enterprise. Frankly, the more the Government go on in this way, pushing corporation tax almost to zero, the more tax avoidance fiddles become redundant, because the Government are doing it for them. Perhaps that is the Government’s aim.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Meacher]

The hon. Gentleman was a tax lawyer, I think. He is also a very mischievous Member of this House, but I will still give way to him.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about me. It is all very well for him to have a go at this Government, but he will recall that under his Government revenues from corporation tax rose by 6% while revenues from income tax, paid by ordinary folk in this country, rose by getting on for 100%. Does he think his own Government did such a great job?

[Mr Meacher]

I do not think that the previous Government did a great job. They did an appalling job on corporation tax, and the hon. Gentleman might be pleased to know that I said so at the time and I have always taken that view. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) raised the issue of capital gains tax with me when I was last speaking, and I think that that tax should be at the same level as income tax. Corporation tax is another matter, of course, but it should be well above the levels the Government are now proposing.

The Government can and should restructure the whole approach on tax avoidance by switching the onus of proof away from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and on to the potential perpetrators. That is exactly what my General Anti Tax-Avoidance Principle Bill was intended to do. It would have made it clear that any scheme whose primary purpose was to avoid tax, rather than being any genuine economic transaction, would be invalid in law and struck down. In order to discourage perpetrators of this attempt to bend the will of Parliament, there would be a sizeable penalty for attempting to subvert that will. My Bill had only a 10-minute showing on the Floor of the House, thanks to Tory filibustering of the prior Bill on that day, so perhaps I might take this opportunity to ask the Minister: does he accept the general anti-tax-avoidance principle? If he does not, what are his reasons for rejecting it? I think he will say that the Government are putting up their alternative—the so-called GAAR or general anti-abuse rule—but that really does not meet the ticket. I wish to say why, and I hope that he will listen to why the Government’s GAAR is really no alternative.

The GAAR is based on a report by Graham Aaronson, who was always a representative of the tax-avoidance industry and never of the tax-compliance will of Parliament. I accept that the GAAR will have some effect, because it outlaws egregiously aggressive and abusive tax avoidance, but of course the implication of that is that it legitimises rather less extravagant tax avoidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Meacher]

I am glad to hear it, but the Minister and his Government will have to prove that in the outcomes that we see over the months ahead. He makes an important point, but there is a perception that if we opt for a rule that is limited to dealing with the worst kind of tax avoidance, it suggests that the rest is rather less important in the Government’s mind; I cannot see the point of having a GAAR if one is also going to “include” other abusive tax procedures, about which there is equal concern. I am sure that debate is coming along, but I am glad that he said what he did and we shall certainly hold him to it. The GAAR could actually make things worse and, even at this late stage, I ask the Government seriously to reconsider whether they should not take over my Bill.

The Government could and should recognise that their strategy to deter tax avoidance, which has been in use for many years, including under the previous Government, via the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—is of limited value and is inadequate on its own. It requires those who are designing and trying to sell these schemes to inform HMRC in advance about each new scheme they introduce. I understand that something over 100 new schemes have been disclosed in each of the past four years under the DOTAS proposals. That shows the industrial scale—I think that was the word that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) himself used—of tax avoidance going on in the City.

DOTAS still leaves two problems. First, it can take HMRC many years to defeat any of the schemes if it goes to the courts and, secondly, some of those promoting such schemes will go to great lengths to avoid disclosure. Even if they are detected and taken to court, the penalty is often something derisory like £5,000 or so. Those involved in such schemes have every incentive to fail to comply with what the Government are seeking.

HMRC’s working definition of tax avoidance, which is often seen as a rather nebulous concept, is, rather sensibly,

“using the tax law to get a tax advantage that Parliament never intended”.

I think that is extremely sensible, so why can it not be cast in statute? Why can it not be laid down as the principle by which the Government and HMRC will test such schemes? That would see off the tax avoidance industry far more effectively than the soft touch of DOTAS. We are coming to the same view on tax avoidance as we did on the banks, and unless persons as opposed to organisations are held responsible—if need be, in extreme cases, by criminal sanctions—very little will happen. If a person were subject to a penalty that was a multiple of the tax charge—perhaps two or three times the charge, depending on the blatancy and gravity of the offence—for seeking to pervert the will of Parliament, that would act as a serious deterrent.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Meacher]

I think that others might wish to speak, but I am sure that I will carry on the conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside and on other occasions.

Finally, corporation tax is, as everyone recognises, so riddled with loopholes as a result of the evolution of the international economy and corporation structures over the past 30 to 40 years that it urgently needs wholesale restructuring. The drive towards territorial taxation must be abandoned and replaced by unitary taxation by which multinationals are taxed according to where their genuine economic activity occurred and not where they pretend it occurred to collect the huge windfalls of transfer pricing.

Surely the most appropriate corporation tax base is either free cash flow or economic rent—the amount, in other words, a business earns in excess of its cost of capital. There are several ways of doing that: removing interest deductibility, introducing an allowance for the cost of corporate equity or shifting the tax base towards tax flow and away from accounting profit.

I have tried to offer several positive proposals. I realise that it is possible to make a lot of pejorative remarks, which are probably just, about the performance of this Government and the previous Government in tackling the problem, but I have tried to be as positive as I can. Unless the Government adopt at least some of the proposals, their claims to have serious intentions about cracking down on today’s enormous cancer of corporate tax avoidance will be seen as the pretence that, sadly, I sometimes think it is.

Multinational Companies and UK Corporation Tax

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing it.

Hard-working families want a better life for themselves and their children. They go out each day, work hard, strive, and pay their taxes. They face increasing costs in some areas of their lives, particularly in rising household bills for gas, electricity and water. The average family have seen their annual household bills rise by £384 since 2010.

I am concerned about whether utility companies are paying the appropriate amount of tax. I have done a study of nine water companies, which, collectively, have a turnover of £28 billion and operating profits of £10 billion a year, yet they paid just £541 million in tax, an effective tax rate of 5%, which goes down to about 3% if we take into account those who have been declaring tax losses.

I have looked at two electricity companies, EDF and RWE npower, which have a collective total turnover of £25.6 billion and operating profits of £1.7 billion, yet they paid no tax whatever. It cannot all be explained by capital allowances. Foreign-owned utilities, particularly in the water industry, have been engaging in schemes using debt interest to avoid tax, which, on my calculations, have resulted in a loss to the Exchequer of about £1 billion over the last three years.

Let us take the example of Southern Water, which covers the area I represent. Over the three most recent years for which figures are available, it generated more than £2 billion in turnover, operating profits of £767 million and paid a net tax charge of £45.9 million. That is an effective tax rate of 6%. Yorkshire Water, over the last three years, generated £2.6 billion in turnover, operating profits of £990 million, and yet received a net tax credit of £46.2 million. Anglian Water, over the last three available years, generated £3.3 billion in turnover, operating profits of £1.4 billion and paid a net tax charge of just £124.7 million. That is an effective tax rate of 8.9%.

What concerns me particularly is that those companies have been abusing the interest deduction system. Over the last three years, Southern Water made some £481.6 million of net interest and interest-related payments to the multinational owners of group companies overseas. According to my calculations, the tax forgone is a potential £125 million for the Exchequer. Yorkshire Water, which is especially egregious in this respect, made £548.5 of net interest and interest-related payments to group companies. According to my calculations, the tax forgone is £142 million. Anglian Water made £365 million of net interest and interest-related payments to group companies over the three most recent years for which figures are available. According to my calculations, the tax forgone is some £95 million.

Over the three most recent years for which figures are available, EDF, which is owned by the French Government, made £268.4 million of interest payments to group companies. According to my calculations, the tax forgone is potentially £70 million, if we assume a corporation tax rate of about the average, 26%. Npower made £58 million of interest payments to group companies. According to my calculations, the tax forgone is £93 million.

I am calling on the regulators to examine the position and to say that if the water companies, in particular, are receiving too high a return in total, they should either be subject to a windfall tax or reduce customers’ bills. Tax-avoiding water companies, and other utility companies, should be made to give a rebate to hard-pressed customers who have faced increased bills in recent years. I hope that Ministers will consider the options available to them. In any event, tax law should be changed so that interest is no longer favoured over equity. Specifically, interest payments from one group company to another should not be tax-deductible.

Spending Review

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

There will be no museum charges; free entry will remain. What we are doing in the museums sector is introducing radical new freedoms, which have been welcomed across the sector. I think that is the right reform, which is to give more freedom to the front line.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

As so little has been done about problems of tax avoidance over the past decade, can the Chancellor confirm that HMRC will have the resources and the cultural enthusiasm it needs to tackle tax avoidance? Does he agree—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One question is enough.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

What I see is jobs being created in the private sector at a record rate in this country—1.3 million jobs in the past three years; a faster rate of job creation than any other G7 country last year. If the hon. Gentleman really cared about his constituents, he would welcome that.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

What has the effect been of Government policies not just on petrol but on keeping interest rates low, freezing council tax, cutting income tax and helping pensioners?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend has raised the issue of interest rates. If we had not had a credible policy to deal with the record budget deficit that the previous Government left behind, interest rates would be a lot higher. In fact, in the last Budget delivered by them, interest payments on Government debt would have been £30 billion higher in this Parliament. If interest rates were just 1% higher, mortgages would rise by almost £1,000 a year for the average household.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. That was a problem at the previous regulator, the FSA. When the PRA was set up, its head, Andrew Bailey, prioritised the issue, making sure that he hires the best people and that they are rewarded accordingly, to make sure they can do a good job in looking after the interests of the taxpayer.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Given that the taxpayer had to buy the bank and, shamefully, was forced to overpay by £12 billion, may I urge the Minister not only to privatise it as soon as possible, but to consider people’s shares, so that the taxpayers who paid for it have something to show for it?

[Sajid Javid]

I remind my hon. Friend of something I said earlier, which is that we are looking at future plans for the state-owned banking sector but think it prudent to wait for the report from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards; however, I will take his representation on board.