Finance Bill
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes
No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady spoke for a very long time, as she often does, and I will not concede. This is a short debate—it goes on only until 7 o’clock—and I want to allow other colleagues to speak.
I want to make a specific plea on biodiesel. I should declare my interest: as some colleagues know, I sometimes drive a London taxi, which has often been powered by biodiesel bought from Uptown Oil, a firm in my constituency that collects used cooking oil from local firms—a chain of good environmental practice ends up in my cab and other vehicles in south London.
I have had discussions with the Economic Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and I asked colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for Redcar (Ian Swales)—to argue the case in Committee last week. We have so far not persuaded the Government to change policy, but I wanted to put the case as to why the industry needs continuing Government attention and to ask that they do not turn their back on the industry, even if they are not willing to concede to my requests now.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I remember a case reported in the papers some while ago. A gentleman in Wales was arrested by customs officials for not paying duty on the cooking oil in his car. He was traced by the smell. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that cooking oil fuel no longer smells, and that customs officials should not arrest people found with it in their cars?
Simon Hughes
I confirm both.
Biofuel is produced from waste vegetable oil and collected locally. This has been going on for a century or more—the first diesel engine ran on peanut oil. Colleagues may not know this, but the idea was that biodiesel vehicles would be used by farmers, who could use their crops effectively. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is clear that the huge numbers of blockages caused by pouring oil down drains are not a good thing—it is better to put it somewhere else, which costs money for companies and local authorities.
Biodiesel also means that such waste does not go into landfill sites, which produce 40% of our methane emissions and 3% of our country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The product therefore helps us to meet our renewable energy targets. We produced something like 35 million litres of biodiesel from used cooking oil sourced in the UK for road transport two years ago, which meant a carbon saving of 82 million kilograms of CO2.
There are about 30 to 40 producers—not just Uptown Oil in my constituency, but companies all over the UK. They are generally small firms, employing about five to 20 employees. They are confronted by a severely difficult economic situation. We could lose them, which would mean a loss of employment, a loss of revenue to the Government because they pay their taxes, and a loss of the source of the product, which would be a very bad thing.
In April 2012, following a decision by the previous Government, the differential fuel duty on biodiesel was taken away—it was put in place to support the industry—as the system of support across the EU changed to a new one. The derogation was originally meant to end in 2010, but it was extended by two years by the previous Government, because the implementation of the renewable energy directive was delayed—perfectly legally. There was therefore an attempt to ensure that the industry in the UK had continuing support on the basis that when such support ended—it was planned to end in spring 2012 —the new renewable transport fuel obligation certificate system would bring in the revenue.
Sadly, that was delayed—it was due to be implemented in December 2010, but in the end, it was implemented in December 2011. The new system has therefore had only a few months to bed in. The problem—bluntly—is that the price of the certificates is nothing like what the industry expected. Let me give a couple of quotes from people on the front line. This is from a firm in Feltham:
“I have found biodiesel road sales fall through the floor since the removal of the tax differential. 80% of my biodiesel sales now are for use as heating oil at a considerably reduced margin and overall volume of sales. I have had to lay-off my production manager and am working 7 days a week just to try to keep the business going.”
Edible Oil Direct Ltd of Rye, East Sussex says:
“We had to keep our prices at the pre budget price. Our On-Road customers who most makeup ‘saves money’ as opposed to the ‘green impact’ stated that if the price was increased in line with mineral they will switch back to mineral.”
Convert2Green of Middlewich, Cheshire says:
“"On average Convert2Green…received last year 20p tax differential and 17p Renewable Transport Fuel Certificate…revenue per certificate i.e. 37 pence per litre. With this, the company made an operating profit of £290k. Currently, the best offer we have for RTFCs up to April 2012 is 7 pence per litre and from April 2012 onwards 10 pence per certificate. At two certificates per litre”—
the new system—
“we estimate we will get 9 pence per certificate or 18 pence per litre on average. This is a reduction of 19 pence per litre. We sell approximately 3.75 million litres of road fuel per annum. Our profit reduction is £712,500 per annum or £59k per month. This takes us into significant loss. We will have to consider our future.”
Finally, the firm from which I bought my biodiesel, Uptown Oil, just over the bridge in Southwark, says:
“So far it has had a disastrous effect on our sales of Biodiesel for road use....Down 75%. Before the change we were receiving…around 17 pence…and 20p from the government. Now we receive 7p x 2 RTFC so 14 pence. So having increased our price we are worse off by 13 pence a litre. If we were to increase our price by 13 pence our fuel would be marginally more expensive than fossil fuel and sales would virtually cease.”
Those figures speak for themselves.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak on this important issue. Notwithstanding the fact that few Opposition Members are present, I hope that Government Members will recognise the quality of the contributions, if not their weight in numbers. Neither should anyone believe that the fact that there are relatively few Labour Members in the Chamber suggests a lack of interest or concern about this issue, which matters to every one of our constituents.
Two weeks ago, on 20 June, an article in The Daily Telegraph reported the Prime Minister as warning motorists that there was
“no bottomless pit of money”
to fund a fuel duty cut. We were led to believe that this was dampening speculation that the Treasury would be able to afford the £1.5 billion needed to cancel the extra duty for one year. On 24 June, the Transport Secretary, also in an interview in The Daily Telegraph interestingly, indicated that she was not prepared to lobby the Treasury to delay or abandon the 3p increase in fuel duty due this August. She was also reported as saying that her focus was instead on “challenging” petrol firms to cut the cost of fuel at the pumps to reflect the falling cost of oil globally.
We have no problem with that. Many people are concerned that prices at the pump do not change as the oil price drops, although we know that it is difficult for small independent petrol retailers who have to buy at a particular price and might not have the same volume going through as some of the large supermarkets. We have to understand that. However, the Transport Secretary’s comments chimed perfectly with the words of the Economic Secretary in a recent Westminster Hall debate:
“Calls for the August increase to be scrapped raise an important question, because we would need to consider how to replace the £1.5 billion it would cost. That money would need to come from higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 143WH.]
Every time the issue was raised, then, Ministers made it absolutely clear that if they were to do it, they would have to come up with a way of paying for it—stating the obvious, perhaps, but I shall return to that point later, if I have the opportunity.
It might be a cliché to talk about a week being a long time in politics, but a week after the 20 June article, the shadow Chancellor, in an article for The Sun—that newspaper, like FairFuelUK, had campaigned on the issue—called for the August duty increase to be dropped, and made it clear that he wanted it to be dropped at least until next January. Government Members seemed to suggest that this was opportunistic and done on the spur of the moment or for purely political reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have consistently made it clear that action needs to be taken, especially given that times are tough, with higher VAT generally and prices rising faster than wages.
Everyone knows from their constituents—I am sure that Government Members receive the same representations as Labour Members—that filling up the car is now a big drag on family budgets. Indeed, a nurse in my constituency who was not on a high salary told me that filling up her car to get to work cost her so much that it was like having another mortgage.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Lady is making heavy weather over who should take the credit and whose idea it was. Is it not great news, first, that prices at the pump are falling, and have been falling in recent weeks, and secondly that the Chancellor has been able to freeze fuel duty?
Cathy Jamieson
I welcome the fact that it will make a difference for constituents, but once again, unfortunately, the way it was done did not suggest a Government who were organised or knew that they were going to make the announcement at that particular time. That is important in the context of how it will be paid for, but I shall come to that.
At the time, we expressed concern that the Chancellor’s Budget plan would mean a 3p hike in fuel duty in just five weeks. Previously, we had called for the Government to cut VAT, which would have knocked 3p a litre off fuel prices, as well as helping hard-pressed household budgets in other ways. We called for the August rise to be dropped because we believed that increasing the fuel duty at this time would have sent the wrong signal to retailers, who would have had to pass every penny on to drivers and put prices up just when they should have been cutting them.
We also made the point that with Britain now in a double-dip recession, the last thing our economy needed was another tax rise adding to the squeeze on household budgets and to the difficulties faced by many small businesses. The Government’s priority should have been to boost the economy, rather than to clobber families, businesses and pensioners just when they were feeling the squeeze the most. That is why we called on the Chancellor to stop the August fuel duty rise, at least until next January. We said that we would put that issue to a vote in Parliament, and that is why we tabled new clause 11.
Cathy Jamieson
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but many people will be about £511 a year worse off. Many, particularly those on the lowest incomes, will not benefit from the rise in the income tax threshold, and a large proportion will be part-time workers who cannot work for the extra hours that they have been told will enable them to continue to qualify for tax credits.
Charlie Elphicke
Does the hon. Lady not welcome the fact that 2 million will be taken out of tax altogether, and that most basic rate taxpayers will be better off to the tune of, I believe, £220?
Cathy Jamieson
The problem is that the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with another. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, many people will be £511 a year worse off. That may not seem a lot of money to one of the millionaires who will benefit from that £40,000, but it will make a big difference to a low-paid worker who is struggling to make ends meet and is feeling the pinch because of rising prices for food and other commodities.
Cathy Jamieson
I am a relative newcomer to this place, and I sometimes find its procedures and conventions bemusing. I have learned from my time in the parliamentary process, however, to take advice from the Clerks and others who know about drafting legislation, and that is what we did in respect of these amendments.
The Minister will no doubt protest that the higher rate was not raising any money, but the Government’s attempts at justification have not withstood the scrutiny that has been undertaken. The Office for Budget Responsibility, for example, says that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ estimates of the reduced tax avoidance that would result from the reduced rate are “highly uncertain”. They are based only on the first year’s yield from the new top rate, which was always expected to be artificially depressed by people’s ability to bring forward their income. No real basis is therefore offered for estimating the revenue-raising potential of the 50p rate. It is for that reason that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that it is
“too soon to form a robust judgement.”
The claims that new funds would flood into the Treasury as a result of people relaxing or reversing their efforts to avoid paying the top rate have been shown to be notoriously speculative. Again, as the IFS explained,
“you’re first giving out £3bn to well off people who are paying 50p tax...you’re banking on a very, very uncertain amount of people changing their behaviour and paying more tax as a result of the fact that you’re taxing them less...there is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of risk with this estimate.”
A written answer provided by the Exchequer Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chief Secretary, on 19 June shows that in 2010-11 more than 73% of people earning over £250,000 were paying more than the top rate, as were more than 80% of people earning between £500,000 and £10 million, implying that many tens of thousands of people were paying the 50p tax rate of last year and are now in line for a very large tax cut if this measure comes into effect.
Cathy Jamieson
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he would like to answer that point.
Charlie Elphicke
I read the impact statement and the detailed IFS discussion of the so-called ‘uncertainty’. Its premise was that the avoidance would end because people would pay themselves out, regardless of how they had parked and deferred the revenue, and would therefore pay the tax at 50p. The problem is that people who have a personal service company—as so many Labour MPs and Labour supporters, including Ken Livingstone, seem to have—can defer for a very long time. They can pay themselves a beneficial loan and almost avoid tax altogether. That has also been a scandal in recent days. It is therefore not true to say people cannot continue deferring.
Cathy Jamieson
I will answer that point in more detail later. I am a little disappointed, however, as I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to make a different point. He seems to be suggesting that only people with a connection to Labour had been avoiding or evading tax, which is, of course, absolutely not the case. I hope Members across the House will ensure that at every stage those who are due to pay their taxes should pay them and should do so willingly and properly.
Cathy Jamieson
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. That must be purely coincidental, because surely no Government would want to take that amount of money from pensioners simply to give it to the richest. Perhaps this Government would though; perhaps we have the same old Tories with the same old policies, yet again. The pensioners who have been hit hardest by this Government’s decisions are seeing them coming back for more. That £3 billion raised over the next five years is the biggest revenue raiser in the whole Budget, and it is coming from the pockets of pensioners with modest incomes. And it is all going towards what? Is it going to paying down the deficit? No. Is it going to help young people get back to work? No. Is it going to help the poorer pensioners? No. Instead, this money is being taken from millions of older people living on modest pensions and redistributed to a few thousand individuals with incomes of more than £150,000 a year. What an absolute disgrace: taking from the pensioners to give to those already on those high earnings.
The Government were said to be surprised by the anger this tax change has aroused. If that is the case—if they were surprised—that shows just how out of touch they are with the values, principles and priorities of the British people. At the time, the response of Age UK was very clear. It said that it was disappointing that the Budget
“offered a tax break of at least £10,000 to the very wealthy while penalising many pensioners on fairly modest incomes, who are already being squeezed”.
We could not have put it better ourselves. The chief executive of Saga said:
“Over the next five years, pensioners with an income of between £10,500 and £24,000 will be paying an extra £3 billion in tax while richer pensioners are left unaffected.”
The National Pensioners Convention said:
“We have been inundated by pensioners who are disgusted that those on around £11,000 a year will no longer get additional reductions in their tax—whilst those earning £150,000 or more will see their tax bills reduced.
This is seen by many as the last straw...Pensioners feel they are being asked to bail out the super rich—and it’s simply not fair.”
Pensioners are absolutely right to feel that way.
These amendments are a chance for the Government to rectify one of the most blatant injustices in this Budget. It simply cannot be right to ask millions of pensioners on modest incomes to pay more while finding a way for a few thousand millionaires to pay less. It is extremely hard to comprehend how the Government could ever have thought that this was fair, or that it would be acceptable to pensioners and to others who care about pensioners, but now they have an opportunity to put it right, and Members from all parts of the House have a chance to show where they stand. They can support these amendments and do the right thing by the people who did the right thing for themselves.
Charlie Elphicke
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, who has set out such a partial view from the Labour party’s perspective on this Budget. I think there is a better approach: the more people we take out of tax, the better, as the administration cost is less and there is less hassle for people, particularly the least well-off. I want to see the personal allowance increased to £10,000 as soon as possible. Good progress was made in the last Budget, but the sooner we take the number to £10,000, by far and away the better. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that most basic rate taxpayers will see an annual cash gain of £220, and I welcome the fact that this Budget takes 2 million people out of tax altogether. That is important, particularly given that we all remember the fiasco over the 10p tax rate. The more we can look after the least well-off and take them out of the tax system, by far and away the better.
I was fascinated by the whole discussion about the 50p rate. We can see from Treasury figures that we are talking about £100 million. That figure is rubbished by the Labour party, which thinks the figure is completely wrong and cites an IFS report. Let me quote the relevant passage from the IFS report, which is where I think the Labour party draws its approach from. The IFS states:
“The worry for the Chancellor is that the estimate that cutting the top rate to 45% will only cost £100 million is particularly uncertain. It assumes a ‘no behaviour change’ cost of £3 billion offset by a behavioural change of £2.9 billion. The first number we know reasonably accurately; the second number is estimated with great uncertainty. Even if we knew the effect of introducing the 50p rate—which we don’t with any precision—responses may not be symmetric. Those who have got a taste for avoiding the 50p rate may continue to avoid the 45p rate (even if they wouldn’t have done so had the 50p rate never existed). The experiment with the 50p rate does not appear to have gone well.”
My first conclusion is that the IFS is saying that making the rate 50p in the first place was a complete and utter disaster. The second issue raised is the uncertainty over behavioural change. On that, I say that we have empirical evidence on what happens when the rate is reduced. I do not know whether everyone recalls this, but we used to have an income tax rate of about 80%. When that was reduced, first to 60%, there were great cries from the Labour party that it would cause a collapse in the revenues, but instead the revenues rose. Why was that? It was because fewer people avoided tax. The Government of the day then reduced the rate to 40p. Again there were great cries from the Labour party that that would let the rich off the hook, but what happened? The revenues rose. Why was that? It was because fewer people were as interested in avoiding tax and they paid up a fair share.
Sheila Gilmore
There are other explanations for the increased tax take during the period in question. One was the general growth in the economy, which generated more income, whereas another was the greater degree of inequalities, which meant that although people were paying a lower rate of tax, the cash take was higher because their income had risen so much. People on very high incomes are still paying a relatively low rate of tax, however. If tax avoidance did not take place previously, why have there been so many examples of it?
Charlie Elphicke
I absolutely agree. The 1980s were a time of great economic expansion; a great time of liberalising markets, sound money and sound economic policies that saw that massive expansion. It was also good that the ’80s saw a massive reduction in the rate of taxation, which spurred on growth.
What happened in the last decade was all built on debt. It was all a bubble and it ended in a massive shambles and a massive bust that has brought our country to its knees. We need growth. How will we get it? By reducing the rate. If we cut the rate, we will increase the take and encourage people to invest in UK plc. That is where we need to go.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Proponents of the Laffer curve, which is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about, often say that paying a higher rate of taxation is a matter of personal choice. Does he agree?
Charlie Elphicke
As I said, I think the Laffer curve is an interesting principle, but I prefer empirical curves and empirical results from experiments. We know from the ’80s that if the rate is cut, it increases the take. For me, the uncertainty is not about whether reducing the rate from 50p to 45p will cost the Exchequer £100 million, but about whether it will add £100 million or £200 million to the Exchequer as fewer people seek to avoid tax.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend think that cutting the rate to 40p or even 35p might have raised even more money? Would not that be a very good thing for the Government to do?
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend tempts me, as ever. He knows that my view is that one should reduce the rate and clamp down heavily on tax avoidance. I respect the fact that he does not always share my views on tackling tax avoidance—I recall that in Committee he said that I was going to paint the cliffs of Dover red, so passionate was I that people should pay their fair share—but I do think that if we have lower, simpler taxes and a simple tax system, it will incentivise investment and encourage more economic growth. The argument for reducing the higher rate of tax, which was only a temporary increase in the first place—the Labour party seems to have forgotten that—was to get more investment in our economy and to encourage the entrepreneurs and wealth creators.
Jonathan Edwards
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the major problem we have at the moment is that it is socially acceptable to avoid paying tax and that our job as politicians is to create a social climate where it is unacceptable not to pay what you are due?
Charlie Elphicke
I agree. There has been a climate in which it is somehow acceptable to avoid taxation and I made many speeches in Committee about how that culture is unacceptable and needs to change.
It is up to us to send a clear message, as Members of all parties, that tax avoidance is wrong. That was why I intervened on the shadow Minister earlier to say that the message sent by politicians who use personal service companies is deeply corrosive. They should all pay a fair share of taxation and should not try to avoid it in that way, because it sends the wrong message. In all fairness, I say that to members of my own party as much as to Labour members. It is not acceptable in the current age.
Ian Lavery
The hon. Gentleman and I had some good discussions in Committee—I would not call them enjoyable, but they were good. Does he think it is fair to hit the grannies—to hit elderly people—with a £3 billion loss and at the same time to cut taxes for the richest people in the UK?
Charlie Elphicke
I think it is fair to say that we are not cutting taxes yet, because the change would not come through to the next financial year. Hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that is the case. We must consider the Exchequer numbers, which show that the cost of the cut is very low. I think those numbers are wrong, as they have not taken into account the dynamic effects of the change, which will probably be tax accretive to the Exchequer when all is taken into account.
As for the issue of age-related allowances, the Government’s triple-lock guarantee will mean that the overwhelming majority of older people—in fact, all of them, I think—will be better off and there are no cash losers. Secondly, we are talking about the very richest of the oldest. We are not talking about the oppressed pensioner with no savings but about the richest of the oldest and, as I say, there will be no cash losers. Although it is uncomfortable for many people and has been uncomfortable for all of us, the Government have been doing the right thing by the elderly and have been looking after the least well-off elderly first of all. It is really important to protect them from the difficult economic times we have had.
Sheila Gilmore
I ask the hon. Gentleman to correct the impression he gave. The age-related tax allowance does not go to the very richest pensioners; it is the group in the middle who are being squeezed by the proposal.
Charlie Elphicke
The age-related tax allowances only kick in to benefit those pensioners who have a substantial income, or a more substantial income, in retirement. We are not talking about the very least well-off pensioners who are affected by grinding poverty, but about pensioners who are better off and who have savings and income. As I said, there are no cash losers and they have had a massive benefit from the pensions triple lock.
Ian Lavery
When the hon. Gentleman says that there are no cash losers, does that mean that pensioners will not lose out?
Charlie Elphicke
That is my understanding, yes. Pensioners will not lose out, there will be no cash losers and no pensioners will be worse off in cash terms, As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we can have the argument about future rates of inflation and future rates of RPI, but one must also take into account the other side of the equation, as pensions and benefits for elderly people will rise in the same way and at the same time. Overall, we are not talking about a great difference; we are certainly looking after the least well-off of the elderly, and we have done so very well indeed. That is an important achievement of this Government. Pensioners have been better off under the Government and have been shielded from the austerity measures.
Let us look across the piece at what the Government have done. We have done the right thing to reduce taxation at the top level, which was meant to be temporary, to encourage investment in our economy and to encourage entrepreneurs. The Government need to take further action to deal with people who abuse personal service companies and other tax wheezes and to ensure that we have stronger measures against avoidance by individuals. We have seen enough of it in the newspapers, so I shall not go into individual cases because, as we know, that ends up in a spat about whether one likes Take That or late-night comedy shows. Nevertheless, it is right that we should ensure that individuals cannot play the system and that the law should be changed. It is all very well for the Labour party to take the moral high ground on the issue of tax allowances, but Labour was asleep at the wheel for about a decade and failed to deal with tax avoidance in the individual and corporate spheres. That was completely wrong.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I would be more prepared to take that from the hon. Gentleman if I had not sat through Finance Bills when we were in government only to see that, time after time, his party tried to stop us closing loopholes that would stop tax avoidance.
Charlie Elphicke
I was not there at those times, I did not sit through those Bills and I cannot comment. I am only a newish Member, elected in the 2010 general election, and I have personally been pretty consistent in making the case that we should not have tax avoidance and should be far more vigorous in tackling tax avoidance by individuals and by corporates. Corporate tax avoidance is particularly important, but it is not on the subject of this debate, so I shall move on quickly before you call me to order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There is an issue and we need to tackle it. Overall, I want the allowances for the least well-off to be higher so that we take more of them out of tax. I think the Government have taken the right Budget decision on the higher rate numbers and have taken a difficult but principled decision on age-related allowances. The Government have struck the right Budget balance.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
“No cash losers”: I must say that I think that those are the most disingenuous words that I have heard in this Chamber for a great many years. I remember that in the Budget the Chancellor was not particularly keen to draw the House’s attention to this change.
In the Budget, the Chancellor glossed over the whole issue of the granny tax very quickly indeed, yet only a year before, he came to the Dispatch Box on Budget day and said that he would not hide anything—he would tell it like it was. He would tell the bad with the good. That was just a year before, but in this year’s Budget, he glossed over the granny tax altogether.
“No net losers”—how accurate is that if we look at the total picture for pensioners? For existing pensioners, the age-related allowance will be frozen. It is interesting that the year before, it was not the Chancellor, but the Prime Minister, no less, who promised that the allowance would increase in line with the retail prices index. “No net losers”—those who believed the Prime Minister’s promise to pensioners might be excused for feeling that they were losers under the change. That is what happens. People listen to what the Prime Minister says, and make their financial plans on the basis of it: “The Prime Minister promised me, so of course I can expect to have that.” Well, it did not happen, and I think that is disingenuous.
We heard in this Chamber that there are no net losers, but what about people who are about to become pensioners? Are they net losers? They certainly expected an age-related allowance, but they find that, for them, it is not frozen, but cut. We can stand here and call black white, but it is incumbent on us not to take the public for fools, and I am afraid that the speech from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) did that. I regret that, because he is not a disingenuous character—he is quite a lovable character in this House—but to say what he did is to treat people with contempt. It is treating them as though they do not understand their own affairs, when it is their own affairs—their own pennies, in many cases—that we are talking about. That hits hard.
Barry Gardiner
I do not want to see dissent break out on the Government Benches. No fighting amongst yourselves, please, gentlemen. These are serious matters. They cannot be treated as an experiment because people suffer.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is a courteous and jolly fellow. Let me help him by digging him out of the hole that he is rapidly getting himself into in his exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The point that we are making is simple: reducing the top rate will not change the income and revenue numbers significantly, but it sends a message to wealth creators that their investment is encouraged and will help to grow the economy.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman has already said once in the debate that he does not believe the Treasury’s figures. He has now reinforced that. The Treasury has made the calculations. He can choose to say, on a personal level, “I think the Red Book is a load of tosh,” but he cannot say that that is the Government’s position. The Government’s position is that the measure will cost £3 billion a year. [Hon. Members: “No, it is not.”] The Government cannot get out of this one. They say that it will cost money. That money will be taken away from some of the poorest people in our society to pay for it.
That is what people find so distasteful about the way the Government are behaving. They are taking away from some of the poorest in our society, yet feel that it is so important to send that signal out to some of the wealthiest. The people who are being excoriated in the public conversations around the country for what they have done and what they continue to do to our economy—those are the people who will benefit, and it is the poor in our constituencies who will suffer.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend, yet again, makes an excellent point. There is an implicit acceptance that people will try to avoid tax, and that therefore it is better to reduce the level of taxation so that there is not the same level of avoidance.
Most of my constituents listening to this debate and to the debate that has been going on since the Budget think the Government do not understand what people are going through, what they are feeling and just how difficult it is for some of them to make ends meet. They do not understand that precisely because of the sort of signals the hon. Member for Dover just mentioned. The Government consider it more important to make those signals to the wealthy. They think it is more important to focus on what they understand about their involvement in society, and they do not give the same attention to getting those messages to the poor in society.
What the Government have done in the Budget is to say, “If you are poor, we know that the best thing for you is to cut your benefits to make sure that you work harder, and if you are rich, we know that the best thing for you is to cut your tax so that you work harder.” People look at that and say, “This doesn’t make sense. It’s one law for the rich and another law for the poor.”
Charlie Elphicke
Yes, we do understand, and I in particular understand because my constituency is one of the most deprived in the south-east. The economic numbers are much more like those of a constituency much further to the north of England than the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We do understand, and we also understand that wages have stagnated since about 2004, on the hon. Gentleman’s Government’s watch. This is not a new problem. We understand that, which is why we need to reduce the top rate of tax to encourage the job creators to create the jobs and the money that will give my constituents more prosperity.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman talks about the way in which wages have broadly stagnated. We are now seeing wages going down and jobs being lost, and we are back in recession. He should look at the promises of his Government in that first Budget. The promises, commitments and assertions were that the measures in it would pull us out of the problems that we were in and get the economy back on track. They would deliver growth and prosperity, but they have not. He will remember, because he is an honest fellow, to use his word, that at the time, on the Opposition Benches, people were saying, “No, this will lead to a double-dip recession.” All those on the Government Benches told us in unison that we were wrong and that the Budget would pull us through the problems.
The electorate look at that, see the analysis, see what steps were taken and ask, “Who was right?” They know, because we are back in double-dip recession, that the Government got it wrong. We are at a point where there is £150 billion extra borrowing, the largest single increase year on year in the UK’s history.
Oral Answers to Questions
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss Smith
Let me name a number of things the Government are doing to support families and let me note our plans to move toward universal credit, which will help with work incentives. Let me note our plans to have doubled the number of disadvantaged two-year-olds receiving free hours of child care each week. On tax credits, let me note that we have had to fix the previous Government’s unsustainable budgeting in that area and that six out of 10 families with children are still eligible.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Is it not especially important that we take action on child poverty, given the quite sharp increase in the previous Parliament? The targets were missed by about 600,000, I think, and when the previous Government left office, 4 million children were in poverty.
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend is correct: child poverty is a real problem. This Government are committed to eradicating it and to increasing social mobility. We are taking the measures to assist children that I listed in response to the previous question. I should also point out that the average household gains about £5.50 a week from the tax and benefit changes made in April this year. We are making progress and acting where we can. It is important to keep up the pressure on child poverty.
IMF
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
No we have not failed to get our money back from the IMF. Britain was one of the creators of the IMF, because we understood after the 1930s that if countries just walk away from problems in the world economy, the problem is very much worse. In the north-east, we have manufacturers such as Nissan in Sunderland. Nissan is making a big new investment in the UK. It is doing so, in the end, because it has faith that the world economy will be a more stable place, one of the reasons being that we have strong institutions such as the IMF.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Had other IMF quota members followed the advice of the shadow Chancellor and effectively walked on by, leaving European countries to fend for themselves, what would have been the effect on the UK economy in terms of jobs and money, and what would have been the effect on the economies of developing countries?
Mr Osborne
If the world were unable to provide the IMF with the resources it needed, people would see that the world was not able to act as a whole to deal with world problems. By the way, I happen to believe that there is no prospect that the shadow Chancellor would have taken a different decision from the one I have taken if he were doing my job. He takes the position he does simply because he is sitting on the Opposition Benches.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
I shall return to my constituents and tell them that a moment of cross-party agreement broke out over the problem that the hon. Gentleman and I agree exists, where we must rightly consider the state pension age, but that that decision will affect certain people in a completely different way from that suggested by any average figure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to respond to his second point by saying that I will remark later on whom the proposals affect and their relative position.
Before making my substantive point about how the economy clusters and how these proposals will affect us, I want to answer the point about inflation made by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who has unfortunately just left the Chamber. She sought to make a case against my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), saying that the Government were doing pensioners a great service by increasing their pension on inflation, which has come about because of events beyond our shores, and the Government are just trying to respond to the oil price, and so on. I have no doubt that world events have had an impact on inflation in this country. Thankfully, I do not have to work out which events have an impact on inflation and report that to the Chancellor. That is the job of the Governor of the Bank of England. I have read the Governor’s letters on inflation and he remarks on the impact of the Government’s VAT rise on inflation. If the hon. Lady were here, I would tell her that it is not entirely true to say that the inflation that we face that has caused the Government to be so proud of their cost of living rise for pensioners is entirely beyond our control. It is in part at least down to the Government’s action.
I want now to think about the cumulative impact of this policy and a couple of others on the part of the world that I represent, but also on similar local economies. Some of the Government’s decisions have resulted in a kind of conflagration that means that particular localities face a really difficult economic future.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes much of the fact that age and longevity vary quite a lot throughout the country. She has also made a connection between shorter life span and deprivation. How many of her constituents with a short or shorter than average life span will be affected adversely by the age-related allowance, because it is over £10,000?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that if you are poor enough to have a short life span, you are not rich enough to be affected by the change, which is an interesting hypothesis. It is a testable proposition, but it seems entirely wide of the mark.
Alison McGovern
I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman chose to mention the north-south divide, because it gives me the opportunity to discuss a concept that trips off the tongue so easily but is actually extremely unhelpful in tackling the kind of local economic development that I am asking Treasury Ministers to consider when making decisions. He will know as well as I do that although the north-west, which we both represent, has significant deprivation, it also has some pretty wealthy areas—the Chancellor himself has the honour of representing one such area. The north-south divide, as a concept, masks a whole lot of other inequalities. Again, I mention the inequalities in London. It cannot be said that there is a simple, straightforward north-south divide in this country affecting every locality in the same way; we should have a much more fine-grained analysis. There are places in the north that are extremely successful and places in the south that really need help.
Before I try the patience of the Chair any further, I will return to the importance of age-related allowances.
Alison McGovern
I will give way, and I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will say what he thinks the Government ought to do to ensure that the cumulative impact of their policies, and their policy on age-related allowances specifically, does not hold back local economic development in parts of Wirral.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again; she is being extraordinarily generous in taking interventions. She is making a characteristically extraordinarily thoughtful speech. It is a matter of great concern that over the past decade and a half, the gap between the least well-off and the richest has grown. There is now more inequality. Will it not help to reduce the inequality between pensioners to increase the basic state pension by the biggest amount ever—£5.30, which is a big jump—and to ensure that the richest pensioners do not get such a high benefit, but do not lose out either, by capping the allowance?
Alison McGovern
That was a long intervention. The hon. Gentleman said that inequality grew under the previous Government. I point him to analysis done, if I recall correctly, by the Institute for Fiscal Studies at the time of the 2010 general election, which showed that the incomes of the lowest on the income scale increased significantly under the previous Government. We can have a discussion about how one deals with the inequality that is created when the incomes of people who earn a great deal of money rise, but I fear that it would not be within the scope of this debate. I am sure that we will discuss that on another occasion.
I will conclude my remarks by talking about the squeezed middle, because it is people on what one would think of as middle incomes who are affected by age-related allowances. In its frequently asked questions section on this policy, the BBC states that
“it is a ‘middle-income’ range of 40% of pensioners who will not get what they might have expected from the tax system.”
Katy Clark
The word “dignity” has been used a number of times in this debate. It is an important word, particularly given the proposed change, which has been put forward at short notice. We have had debates about pensioner income over many years in this place. We have heard a number of proposals, from parties in all parts of the House, that would change the financial position of those reaching retirement. However, a common theme has been the importance of giving as much notice as possible of any change, particularly when dealing with people’s incomes in retirement, so that people can make the changes necessary to cope with the changing world.
One of the problems with the proposed change, which will come into effect in 2013-14, is that it represents not a minor or technical change, as many Government Members have said, but quite a substantial drop in income at short notice for people on modest or medium incomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) highlighted the impact on those who turn 65 in 2013-14, who could lose £323 a year, which represents a significant amount, not a technical change. Therefore, to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), people in those income brackets will be very disappointed by the change. That is one reason I have highlighted the fact that the measure was not in the manifesto. If the Government think that it is an important part of their long-term pension reform, it should have been in the manifesto. It should have been consulted on and thought through, and a great deal more notice should have been given to the individuals affected.
Charlie Elphicke
A key concern of mine is to understand why there should be a higher personal allowance for senior citizens than for hard-pressed families who are struggling to get by. Why does the hon. Lady think that that is justified?
Katy Clark
I mentioned this in an intervention. At the time of the allowance’s introduction, a number of reasons were given, one of which was pensioners’ higher heating costs. A full explanation was given during those debates of the higher and additional costs that are associated with retirement. Those higher costs of living have a disproportionate impact on pensioners. In the debates on pensions that we have had over the past few months, a great deal has been said about the higher costs that pensioners face, and about the possibility of having a different form of indexation for pensions, given that pensioners tend to have different living costs from the rest of the population.
Nigel Mills
Obviously I did not say that, because I would have been wrong if I had, but I did say that no section of the population would be spared the pain caused by our sorting out the mess that we would have to deal with. I would also have said that I considered the 50p or, more accurately, 52p tax rate an invidious measure which had been devised as a political trap, that it was a terrible tax policy, and that it would probably raise very little money.
The two independent studies that support the Budget have shown that the cost of lowering the rate to 45p is about £100 million a year. The saving from the so-called granny tax is approximately 10 times the size of that. If anything in the Budget is being funded by the granny tax, it is the reduction in personal allowances for the low earners in society.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my hon. Friend recall the former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair saying back in 1997, “Elect us and we will destroy the private pensions system on which you rely for your retirement with a £150 billion impost”? I do not recall anything of that nature appearing in the Labour party’s manifesto.
Nigel Mills
I think my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should view the issue in the round—the issue, that is, of how we can encourage people to fund their own retirement and achieve the decent level of income that they want in a way that is not unaffordable for the taxpayer.
Nigel Mills
I accept that that is an issue in respect of the granny tax proposal, but I suspect that the £5 billion tax raid which has been referred to and a whole series of other measures that have discouraged saving will have far more serious impacts. I am sure the hon. Lady would join me in welcoming the Government’s proposal to introduce the flat-rate individual state pension of, I think, £140 per individual, as that will help address the problem she mentioned.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous intervention was a real cheek? The party of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) destroyed our pension system and raided our pension funds, and it also destroyed thrift by introducing means testing into the pensions system, thereby totally disincentivising any form or saving and personal responsibility whatever.
Sheila Gilmore
I think it is important to see this in the context of the cut in the 50p rate.
I am also concerned about some of the attempts today to counterpose and, as usual, level down. It is fascinating. We heard earlier that if we were going to increase the allowances for young people and working people, it was not fair that older people who were already retired should have a higher threshold. Why do the Government always want to level down? Why do they feel, essentially, that they have to pit one group against another rather than saying that the unfairness lies in the high tax levels for working families? Let us not forget that many of those families have not benefited from the rise in the tax threshold because of the changes to tax credits.
Some of the apparently quite small measures that the Government are introducing are illogical. We keep being told that we want people to save and to benefit from savings and work, but yet again this measure undermines that. We have seen that, too, in the way in which working tax credit has been dealt with. We have heard about people with very low working hours who will lose a lot of working tax credit. Working tax credit was frozen, however, and was not increased in line with inflation when benefits were. That totally contradicts the Government’s own policies, because if we want to make work pay rather than benefits, why put up benefits in line with inflation but not working tax credit?
At lot of what is happening is illogical and it is important that we straighten things out and oppose this provision. I shall sit down now so that my hon. Friends can speak.
Charlie Elphicke
One key point is missing from this debate, and that is a memory on the part of the Labour party. We have heard a lot of cant from the Opposition and they have shown very little memory of the pensions raid back in 1997, which knocks the issue of age-related allowances into a cocked hat. It should be remembered that there was a £150 billion pension stealth tax at that time. Indeed, Ros Altmann, who was an adviser to Tony Blair, famously said that Labour “destroyed our pensions system”. The numbers involved as regards age-related allowances are small compared with that massive and unjustified smash-and-grab raid on our pension system, which destroyed the private savings culture that had been built up over so many years. Then, considering the insidious introduction of pensions means-testing, which was a massive attack on personal responsibility, it is extraordinary to hear arguments from the Labour party that the measures on age-related allowances somehow take away that personal responsibility, given that it introduced a whole system that systematically wrecked the taking of personal responsibility. We need to hear a bit more humility from the Labour party and a bit more of an apology.
Charlie Elphicke
On the contrary, I am really delighted that we have delivered on the pensions triple lock guarantee. Some hon. Members might recall that back in April 2000—it was a long time ago so perhaps the hon. Lady has forgotten—the basic state pension rose by 75p. That was the kind of care and concern we saw for pensioners from the Labour party, whereas the Conservative party is ensuring that we have the highest ever increase in the basic state pension, in cash terms, of £5.30 a week.
Julie Hilling
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he makes this link between the 75p increase, which did not go down well at the time but was based on inflation, and this increase, which is of course also based on inflation. Pensioners will get no benefit whatever—no increase in their pension—from this amount. It simply compensates them for the rate of inflation. In fact, they will lose out because it is based on the consumer prices index, not the retail prices index. For most pensioners, the inflation they feel is much closer to RPI; indeed it is above that because of the way their expenditure has to be made.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Lady forgets that the way the triple lock works involves not just inflation but earnings. At the moment, earnings are not rising at a great rate of knots because of the massive economic mismanagement of the Labour party that this Government are trying to put right, and that is not being assisted by the chaos in the eurozone. Over time, however, earnings will outstrip inflation and I suspect that will happen in the latter part of this year, so that has a bearing on age-related allowances.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some hollowness to the Labour party’s argument regarding the state benefit? After all, Labour prevaricated for many years from the early 1980s in relation to the link to earnings that was taken away in the early 1980s. They had 13 years to rectify that, but did not do anything about it. Now we have put the triple lock in place, they are criticising that. Which way does my hon. Friend think they want it— with pensioners better off, as they will be under the Conservative-led coalition, or with pensioners being worse off as they were under Labour?
Charlie Elphicke
Exactly so. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is true that we took away the whole issue of the earnings link, but we restored it, whereas the Labour party sat by as a spectator, including in its time in government. Overall, the package for pensioners means that no pensioner will lose out in cash terms. It is a fair settlement and this Government have looked after pensioners extraordinarily well.
Mr Gauke
Clause 4 makes changes to age-related income tax personal allowances, supporting the Government’s longer-term aim of simplifying the tax system by creating a single personal allowance regardless of age. In light of the Government’s commitment to increase the personal allowance to £10,000, together with our commitment that older people will benefit from future increases in the personal allowance above their 2013 allowance once these are aligned, there will be no need to continue with this complication in the tax system. One of the Government’s key objectives for the tax system is to make it simpler and easier for everyone to understand.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is of course right. It is a matter of record, and it shows that when it comes to a vote in the House, the Labour party does not have a policy.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The issue was not invented there so the Opposition could not vote for it, whereas although I disagree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), I credit him with being principled, and principled in his voting, rather than trying to have it both ways, like Labour.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that we are more efficient than the official Opposition.
Alun Cairns
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is extremely selective in whom he quotes and when he quotes them. He chooses to quote the OBR’s figures when it suits his argument on one occasion, but chooses to quote the HMRC’s figures when it suits his argument on another occasion. That relates back to the uncertainty that I mentioned.
Charlie Elphicke
I have a couple of points. I always understood that the issue of the 50p rate was not in our manifesto because the previous Government said that it was temporary. It therefore did not need to be in our manifesto, because it was always meant to be a temporary measure. On the nonsense that Opposition Members have spouted about business investment, has my hon. Friend seen paragraph 3.62 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”, which states:
“We therefore expect only moderate growth in business investment this year as the heightened uncertainty from the ongoing euro area difficulties limits firms’ investment plans”?
It is not the UK that is at fault, but the eurozone, which the Opposition wanted to take us into.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly forceful and passionate argument. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said that according to the HMRC report, the 50% rate had raised £1.1 billion. He is playing fast and loose with the figures, because in the 2010 Budget, Labour said it would raise about £2.6 billion extra. It is an ever-disappearing amount of receipts. Is it not the case that when the rate is cut, it normally ends up increasing the take?
Charlie Elphicke
Much of the discussion on the 50p rate has been on whether it is an economic decision or a political one. My viewpoint is very simple. If we wanted a nice, easy time, and if our Ministers wanted a nice easy ride on the “Today” programme, where all those nice, gently liberal-leftie, metropolitan BBC people would congratulate us on doing nothing whatever, we would have left the higher rate at 50p. I am sure the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) would have approved and been happy to congratulate us. If, on the other hand, we wanted to take action and do the right thing economically—the one thing that really matters is getting this country growing as quickly as possible—even if it were politically hard for us to sell, we would support the entrepreneurs, wealth creators and aspirant people who create the jobs and money that make this country go. For my money, that is the bottom line. The economics trump the politics.
Owen Smith
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman that getting the country growing is the most important thing. The trouble is that that blue book he was waving around a moment ago, taking into account the 50p rate cut and all the other measures, says that the Government will increase GDP by 0.1%. Are they not failing?
Charlie Elphicke
I completely disagree. The Government are doing a great job. We have had the most difficult year, in which recovery was effectively postponed because the European and eurozone crisis caused massive uncertainty. I will not shirk from the point: that uncertainty has caused businesses to delay the business investment that was expected by about a year. The OBR, in the blue book that the hon. Gentleman says I am waving around, makes that perfectly clear. I will happily take him on on the issue of business investment. The situation has come to pass basically because of the eurozone. Also, the OBR says that business investment for the fourth quarter can be a bit lower than expected but that it often, statistically, bounces. It also says that the Government’s pioneering reduction of business taxes will have a positive effect in helping the country to grow.
The bottom line of economics is that we need to ensure more jobs and money as quickly as possible to help the country to grow faster despite the chaos and financial mismanagement in the eurozone. Let us not forget that Labour, if it had had its way, would have taken us into that chaos and into the euro. If Labour had won the election, it would also have carried on spending at an unsustainable rate and rapidly taken us the way of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland, which would have put us in an extraordinarily difficult position.
On the revenue numbers, Labour’s central argument is that we should not cut the 50p rate because, first, we need to hit the rich and squeeze them until the pips squeak and, secondly, we are letting money go that would otherwise be brought into the Exchequer and are looking after our rich friends. That is its analysis. However, the summary in paragraph 4.7 on page 84 of the OBR report states:
“The Chancellor’s decision to cut the”
50p rate
“has an estimated direct cost to the Exchequer of £0.1 billion, excluding the impact of ‘reverse forestalling’ as people shift…income from”
one year to another
“to take advantage of the lower rate. The figure is small because the additional rate is now assumed to be close to its revenue-maximising level.”
In other words, it does not make much difference—£100 million here, £100 million there, out of a total budget that I believe is getting on for £700 billion, is a small amount, particularly given that it sends a positive message to aspirants, entrepreneurs and the people who work hard to deliver so much value-added for our country.
Michael Connarty
We can all pick selectively from the OBR report—I have referred to it quite a few times—but this is a comment based on the Government’s own estimate that there will be an inflow of £2.9 billion from increased activity by those who pay the 45% rate. There is absolutely no fact behind that yet. It is basically a comment based on a prediction by the Government. In other areas, again and again since they took office, they have been very wrong. It is a hope, not a statement of fact. The actual cost will be £3 billion until the money comes in that the OBR has accepted from the Chancellor’s estimates.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing me on to my next point. The hon. Member for Pontypridd is fond of saying, “Ah, look at the HMRC impact report. It brought in £1.1 billion but the estimate was that it would then have brought in much more.” [Interruption.] Some £3 billion, he says. That was the estimate in the March 2010 Budget, which mentioned an additional £2.6 billion. In the June 2010 Budget forecast, that increased to £2.7 billion. However, when we look in detail at what happened and how much was brought in, it appears that the OBR and HMRC now estimate the figure to be £0.6 billion in 2012-13.
Owen Smith
I will explain to the hon. Gentleman why there is a step from year 1, when we anticipated it would raise £1.3 billion but when it actually raised £1.1 billion, to the subsequent figure of £3 billion. The explanation, of course, is that it gets far harder to bring money into earlier years. It gets far harder to forestall the income. That is what happened in the first year, but it would have been increasingly difficult to do so afterwards.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman makes that assertion. Let us consider the detail of what the OBR says, leaving aside forestalling. Page 108 of its report, which considers this matter in great detail, states:
“These steps might include labour supply responses (e.g. working less”—
working less hard, basically—
“taking a lower paid job, retiring early, or leaving the country)”.
As we know, many people have given up, upped sticks and gone—driven away by the anti-business, anti-aspiration policies of the Labour party.
Alison McGovern
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly how many people have left the country? If so, what is his source for that statistic?
Charlie Elphicke
I am simply reporting what the OBR has said. I will not pretend that I am an expert on immigration to and emigration from this country. I might represent Dover but that does not mean I count everyone in and out. I have to trust the OBR. Having said that, in the past decade my constituents have complained that an awful lot of people seem to have come in. They are very upset about that and think there could have been more border security. But that is not the key point of this debate.
Harriett Baldwin
I am listening to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech with great interest because of his expertise as a tax accountant.
Harriett Baldwin
Tax lawyer even. Was he as surprised as I was at the £16 billion to £18 billion of forestalling measures taken after it was preannounced that the rate would rise to 50p?
Charlie Elphicke
Very much so. My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is also in the OBR report. These are the forestalling measures—[Interruption.] Labour assumes that people forestall for only one year and that the income will suddenly pop up the following year. That is not what really happens. Often people will take a long career break. [Interruption.] I shall give the hon. Member for Pontypridd, who is chuntering from a sedentary position—
The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)
Order. I will not accept this happening across the Committee. Right hon. and hon. Members should know better.
Charlie Elphicke
I will give the Committee an example. Let us say that I earn £150,000. Obviously, as a Member of Parliament, I do not, but let us assume that I did and that I did not feel like paying the 50p rate. What could I do? People’s response—the market response, if one likes—is to set up things such as personal service companies, and then we will not see the 50p tax rate again. They will shove money into their personal service companies and pay the small companies rate of taxation. They then sit tight and pay a very low dividend rate of taxation when they get the money out as and when they see fit. Alternatively, they do this trick where they loan themselves lots of money and pay an extraordinarily low beneficial loan rate of tax. I think that such behaviour is wrong. The Labour party ought to know about this not just because of Ken Livingstone but because others of them are up to it as well. They should come clean and be a bit clearer with the Committee about their understanding that people will avoid and forestall for good.
Mark Durkan
Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the Committee that none of those schemes or scams will happen under the 45% rate?
Charlie Elphicke
With the 45% rate, there is less utility and less maximisation of revenue from doing so. Of course, it is marginal, but the unacceptability of paying—paying, not avoiding—at 45% is less than it is at 50p. People resent 50p and think, “These people are trying to stuff me and take all my money away.” The 40p rate was well settled and people’s behaviour was sort of booked in. The judgment is that the most revenue will be raised halfway between the two because, on the one hand, people will think it acceptable—they will not go the extra mile to avoid it—and, on the other hand, they will not think they are being fleeced as they were under the so-called temporary 50p rate, which Labour is now saying was not temporary.
Charlie Elphicke
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time, but I would ask him to say whether it was always the intention that the 50p should be temporary. Yes or no?
Owen Smith
I have already answered that three times in this debate, so I am not going to repeat myself. Yes, the rate was temporary, although we would not have got rid of it for the whole of this Parliament. However, let me remind the hon. Gentleman what the Business Secretary’s response was to the argument, which he has just made, about the equanimity with which people will pay full tax at the 45p rate: “Pull the other one”.
Charlie Elphicke
The Business Secretary is well known for having strong and principled positions from which he never resiles. The hon. Gentleman makes a fascinating point, although I do not know the detail of that quotation.
Let me turn to tax planning, and avoidance and evasion. As I have said, people set up personal service companies and, quite frankly, fiddle the system. To be honest, we need stronger anti-avoidance legislation to stop that kind of thing. However, the important point is that we need it if the rate is at a level at which people regard it as socially acceptable to pay, and do not feel that they are being completely fleeced.
Mark Reckless
My hon. Friend has substantial expertise as a tax lawyer. Does he think that a “look-through” anti-avoidance measure for personal service companies of that type would work?
Charlie Elphicke
That is a really interesting question. In practice, it is incredibly difficult to distinguish between the person who is setting up a personal service company simply to play the system and the person who is in business and is genuinely using such a company so as not to go bankrupt. It is difficult to draw the dividing line to distinguish the husband and wife who are simply trying to play the system—that often happens—from the genuine business that is acting for true commercial purposes. It is quite invidious to separate the two.
It is better to set the rate at a level where, as the OBR would put it, the willingness of high-earning individuals is such that they regard it as slightly more socially acceptable to pay. Indeed, the OBR was not just the Exchequer’s patsy on this issue; rather, it was independent. As the OBR says on page 109 of its report, it reviewed in considerable detail what the HMRC report said about what the revenues would be, in considering whether to reduce the tax rate to 45p. It looked at the methodology used by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in the Mirrlees review, at the work of Brewer et al, while also adjusting for forestalling—a point the hon. Member for Pontypridd raised—and at the HMRC study on the underlying behavioural response. Therefore, a lot of work has been done on what exactly the position is.
It is true, of course, that things are quite uncertain. The cost to the Exchequer might not be £100 million. Indeed, students of tax history will know that when the rate originally went from 80% to 60%—a massive cut—the revenues did not fall, but rose dramatically. Did receipts fall when the tax rate was then cut from 60p to 40p? No, they rose dramatically. My understanding of the history, therefore, is that if we reduce the rate, we up the take. There is real risk and massive uncertainty. Indeed, rather than costing the Exchequer £100 million, this measure may well make the Exchequer up to about £500 million. From the history, it seems far more likely that we will have an increase in the take, which will mean improvements for our schools and hospitals, and in our ability to pay down the massive debt that the previous Government saddled us with. I therefore think this is the right policy at the right time.
Mr Gauke
As we all know, the previous Government were reluctant to take any meaningful steps to reduce the deficit. However, they could point to the imposition of an increase of more than 10% in the additional rate in three months, even though there was scepticism at the time about the projected levels of revenue. It is also worth pointing out that the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), accepted that the increase was “a temporary measure”. He recognised some of the difficulties with the policy. He accepted that the behavioural effect would steeply reduce potential revenues—the estimate at the time was that the measure would reduce revenues by two thirds. That is about £4 billion of revenue that he accepted would never materialise, owing to behavioural adjustments, such as individuals deciding to work less or not remain in the United Kingdom. He also accepted that the 50p rate would damage the UK’s international standing, giving us the highest statutory income tax rate in the G20. He also accepted, I am sure, the fact that although the measure was temporary, it would be politically difficult to reverse.
However, I have to say to the Opposition, and to the many hon. Members who have participated in this debate, that although Labour may claim to want to raise taxes on the wealthy, the reality is that the 50p rate was not succeeding in getting the money in. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the 50p rate was in place for only 36 of the 4,758 days for which the previous Labour Government were in power. When we came into office, we inherited a tax rate that we were told would damage our competitiveness, that would bring in questionable levels of revenue and that was always expected to be temporary.
Mr MacNeil
It is not the taxes that are the problem but the level of the taxes, who is controlling them and what they are doing with them to stifle economic growth.
Furthermore, Amanda McMillan, chief executive of Glasgow airport, said:
“On the question of devolution of APD, Glasgow Airport has always been supportive of this proposal given the Scottish government’s more progressive approach to aviation and its greater appreciation of the role the industry plays in supporting the growth of the Scottish economy.”
Mr MacNeil
I am sorry but there is no time. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] If I have time later and the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene then, he may.
The Scottish Government Transport Minister, Keith Brown, said:
“We need to be able to deal with the competitive and connectivity disadvantages that Scotland faces and if APD were devolved now we could provide the means to incentivise airlines to provide new direct international connections to Scotland, benefiting our aviation industry and our passengers and supporting the growth of the Scottish economy. The UK government needs to listen to the many voices in Scotland who clearly want to see full devolution of”
the APD powers to Scotland. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce’s chief executive, Liz Cameron, said:
“Current rates of APD seem more suited to controlling capacity constraints at Heathrow than they do with the needs of regional airports, and devolution of this tax would afford the Scottish Government the opportunity to create an air transport package for Scotland designed to improve our direct international connectivity.”
A range of voices throughout Scottish industry and aviation are clearly calling for the devolution of APD.
We have been calling for the devolution of APD to the Scottish Parliament for some time. Most recently, we called for it to be part of the Scotland Bill, but unfortunately the Government and Labour opposed the idea. Today, however, we are arguing again for the devolution of APD in a different context. We do not need to argue the viability anymore, because the Government conceded that point in agreeing to devolve APD to Northern Ireland.
Charlie Elphicke
We have airports in Kent. Why should we not have regionalisation of APD for all regional airports? Why should it just be special pleading for Scotland?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I hope he will join me in the Lobby, because if it is good enough for Scotland, surely it is good enough for Kent. We are happy enough for it to be devolved to Kent if it wants it. We are not the type of people to want a power for ourselves that we would deny to others. We are not the type of people who would give it to Northern Ireland but not to Scotland.
The amendment is straight and to the point. It would allow the Scottish Parliament to set APD rates for Scotland. By passing it, under the rules in the Scotland Act 1998, the Treasury would redirect those specific funds to the Scottish consolidated fund instead of to a UK consolidated fund. With this economic lever, we in Scotland would have the ability to set our own rates, although owing to legal reasons we could not increase them—but frankly why would we? Higher rates of such taxes and the punitive fuel duty can only increase inflation and reduce productivity.
The evidence is growing in our favour. My office has discovered that Scotland has been getting the short end of the stick on non-EU flights. According to the Department for Transport, Scotland has only four non-EU direct routes—air routes that fly in and out of Scotland to a non-EU country. Let us compare that with our Celtic and Scandinavian neighbours. Norway and Ireland are connected to key emerging economies such as Russia, and Denmark is connected not only to Russia but to China, Japan and 24 other non-EU countries. Norway has connections with about 15 non-EU destinations, and Ireland with about 10, while Scotland is trailing with four. It is remarkable, given all this, that Edinburgh is such a successful financial centre. Arguably, Scotland was comparatively better connected in the days of the Icelandic sagas than it is now, with the Westminster Government controlling APD.
The UK Government are responsible for the negotiation of air routes with other countries. In short, Governments agree to routes in international air agreements and later decide where the routes go. In that capacity, the Westminster Government have failed Scottish airports. For more than 65 years, Governments have argued for more and more routes to the south-east of the UK, with only a handful making the road north of the M25. Devolving APD would take the pressure off Heathrow, with the calls for a third runway. Given that Monday is St George’s day, this measure would be almost a St George’s day gift from the SNP to the people of the south-east of England.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
No, I will make some progress, because, as my hon. Friend also said, and as the House knows, the Government have already set out plans to reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 23%, but this year’s Finance Bill goes even further for precisely the reasons that he gave.
Clauses 5 and 6 will reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 22% by 2014—a headline rate that is dramatically lower than that of our competitors, the lowest in the G7 and the fourth lowest in the G20.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
On that point, it is incredibly important that the Government are reducing the rate of corporation tax. That is great news for British business. However, British business pays corporation tax. Should not we take proper action against multinationals that rip off our country and do not pay proper taxes, and ensure that they pay a fair share of tax, like every British business, so that we have a level tax playing field for all companies?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for our measures on corporation tax. The fact that they have been welcomed not just by hon. Members, but by the CBI and a range of business organisations—and, indeed, that they have been shown to increase business investment—will help this country retain its international competitiveness, which declined markedly when the Labour party was in government.
My hon. Friend is right that we must deal with tax avoidance by companies, and there are a number of measures in the Bill that are precisely aimed at ensuring that businesses pay their fair share of tax, which I am sure he would wish to support. Furthermore, through clause 180, we are introducing vital reforms to the controlled foreign companies rules, and, through clause 19, a patent box to allow UK businesses to operate in an ever-more globalised world. Hopefully, we will encourage some of the businesses to which he refers to return to the UK. The latter measure has already secured a major investment in this country by a major chemicals company.
As well as creating the competitive conditions for enterprise to thrive, we must ensure that businesses have the support they need to seize the opportunities in the recovery. That is why we are taking action in the Bill to support the small businesses, the start-ups and the entrepreneurs that are critical to creating new jobs in the recovery. Clauses 39 and 40 increase the annual investment limit for enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts to £5 million. In that spirit, through clause 28, we are introducing a new scheme—the seed enterprise investment scheme—to encourage further investment in small, start-up companies, which are the kind of companies this country needs more of as the recovery continues. Those are significant steps to encouraging new growth, galvanising new sectors, and broadening access to finance for UK business, helping to rebalance our economy away from its over-reliance on one sector and one region.
We are committed to supporting a private sector recovery right across the UK. Clause 44 introduces a new, enhanced capital allowance regime for businesses in seven enterprise zones in England, three in Scotland and one in Wales.
Rachel Reeves
I believe that a temporary cut in VAT back down to 17.5% and a national insurance holiday for all small businesses taking on new workers are the way to put the economy back on track to recovery.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
How would the hon. Lady pay for those pledges, and how much they would cost?
Rachel Reeves
This Government are borrowing an extra £150 billion because of the costs of their economic failure. The reality is that, with more people out of work and therefore claiming benefits, and with fewer businesses succeeding and paying taxes, this Government are ending up borrowing more, because their risky gamble with their economic policies has failed.
Instead of continuing on the downward path begun under the previous Government, total unemployment has mounted to new highs. It is now at the highest level since 1997. Some 2.67 million people are out of work. More than 1 million young people are out of work. We have the highest level of youth unemployment on record. That is a cruel fate to be inflicting on people leaving school, college and university. Instead of going on to get a job or training, they are being left to rot on the dole queue. The truth is that—just as we on this side of the House, along with numerous independent economists, warned—the Government’s attempts to cut too far and too fast have choked off the economic recovery, squeezing households and businesses and sending unemployment soaring, with the result that, as I said to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), the Government are now forced to borrow £150 billion more than they had planned.
This lesson is being learned around the world, as over-ambitious austerity plans founder. Last year the OECD warned credit rating agencies which press for rapid fiscal consolidation but
“react negatively later, when consolidation leads to lower growth—which it often does.”
Sure enough, Standard & Poor’s decision earlier this year to downgrade nine of the eurozone’s 17 member states was accompanied by the warning that
“fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating.”
The International Monetary Fund’s sharp downward revisions of its global growth forecasts—including for the UK—for 2012 was accompanied by a call to “reconsider the pace” of fiscal consolidation. Indeed, the IMF’s chief economist has said:
“Substantial fiscal consolidation is needed, and debt levels must decrease. But it should be…a marathon rather than a sprint”
and cited the proverb
“slow and steady wins the race”.
Our economic performance did not have to be this way. We need only look across the Atlantic to see the benefits of a more balanced approach to deficit reduction, with the US now enjoying steady falls in unemployment and accelerating economic growth. Let me quote the opinion of Adam Posen of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. His forensic comparison of the US and UK experiences concluded:
“Fiscal policy…played an important role as well. Cumulatively, the UK government tightened fiscal policy by 3% more than the US government did…and this had a material impact on consumption. This was particularly the case because a large chunk of the fiscal consolidation in 2010 and in 2011 took the form of a VAT increase, which has a high multiplier for households.”
In other words, by hitting households as hard as they did, sapping confidence and sucking demand out of the economy, the Chancellor and his ready accomplice, the Chief Secretary, have got the UK stuck in the slow lane while other key players in the global economy are overtaking us.
Rachel Reeves
That is just not true and it is not accurate. A reduction in VAT helps people who do not pay income tax, which includes the poorest people, and benefits pensioners. The increase in the personal tax threshold does not benefit pensioners one jot, nor people who are not earning enough to benefit from a change in personal allowance. A cut in VAT helps all those people, however, including the lowest paid who will not benefit from the changes to the tax threshold. The right hon. Gentleman is just wrong.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Lady can correct me if I am wrong, but my reading of the IFS’s analysis is that it says that increasing the personal allowance just like that would benefit the most well-off, but it does not take into account the fact that the threshold at the 40% rate is reduced down so that the most well-off do not benefit. That is a slight flaw, by my reading, in the IFS analysis.
Rachel Reeves
The analysis of the measures in the Budget shows that the changes to the personal threshold are not a progressive policy, as hon. Members seem to be claiming. In fact, they benefit those dual income households on higher salaries much more than they benefit the poorest people in society, many of whom do not pay tax. Of course, the changes do not benefit pensioners at all as they are seeing their tax allowance frozen. As a result, many pensioners will lose out by up to £83 whereas people who are coming up to retirement will lose out to the tune of more than £300 a year.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s new economic model—this idea that we will have a rebalanced economy with lower borrowing, more saving and more investment—has failed to materialise. Indeed, the precise opposite is predicted. Their plan has failed: the policies are hurting, but they are not working. This Finance Bill, which was a chance for the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to learn the lessons and to start to repair some of the damage that they have done, has been a huge missed opportunity.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right: instead of the Government making up policy as they go along, without bothering to talk to anybody who is affected by it, they should have consulted the Charity Commission and the charities affected. The Press Association reports that the Government are doing a U-turn; perhaps we will get clarification on that from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, if he is bothering to listen to anything that is being said this afternoon. Will he confirm what the PA says—that there is a U-turn on charities tax relief? The fact is that nobody knows: the Government and the Prime Minister do not seem to know what is happening with their own policy, and we have had no clarification in the House this afternoon.
Rachel Reeves
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a clue what is going on with the Government’s policy on charities tax relief.
Charlie Elphicke
It is clear that we should crack down on tax avoidance, but I want to know whether the hon. Lady is serious about doing so. Will she condemn the tax avoidance of people such as Ken Livingstone, or is this just more crocodile tears from the Labour party?
Rachel Reeves
We are serious about cracking down on tax avoidance, but tax avoidance is not the same as giving donations to UNICEF, Macmillan nurses, the Red Cross, the National Trust and thousands of charities in this country that rely on the money they get to do their important work, often supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society. If the Government cannot tell the difference between tax avoidance and doing the right thing and supporting valuable charity work, it shows the extent to which they have lost their grip on reality.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Everything that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) says would be fair enough if what this Government were doing were any different from what a Labour Government would have been doing at precisely this time. The public sometimes lose track of the reality of the situation that we are in. We politicians talk in terms of billions or—perhaps soon—trillions of pounds, but a constituent put it to me like this, offering a better way of describing our situation. It is as if we were somebody who had an income of £50,000, who had knocked up a credit card debt of another £50,000, and who had promised to repay £4,000 of it but was actually repaying only £2,000. We are in a dire financial situation. I suggest that whoever were in government at this time would be doing much the same. In fact, I suggest that what the Government are doing is the bare minimum necessary to maintain market confidence.
We have had a lot of debate about the ratings agency, and I am sure that the Labour party is gearing up to tease the Government if there is any decline in our rating score, yet if we did anything less than what we are doing to address this deficit, we would be in dire trouble with the markets, and I have no doubt that interest rates would eventually have to rise, with all the consequences we know about for businesses and for ordinary mortgage payers. I therefore do not accept this apocalyptic view of the Government’s proposals. As I say, the Government are doing the bare minimum necessary to maintain market confidence.
I do not accept either the argument put forward by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that there is some sort of right-wing plot—that we have been waiting for years for this crisis in order to take a stab at Keynesian politics and that, really, all we are interested in is a slash and burn of the public services. It is hardly a slash and burn, given the sort of figures we are talking about. In fact, Government spending is as high as it has ever been. All we are doing is trying to get to some sort of grip with the deficit.
Personally, I have always argued that the economy would benefit from deregulation and from simplification particularly of the tax system, leaving aside the total size of the public sector. I would have thought that Members on both sides of the House could accept that what is needed is simplification. How, then, are we going to get it?
I spoke in the Budget debate at about 6 o’clock. Such is the complexity of the modern Budget process that it is difficult for people to get a handle on what is going on as it is being enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was teased by one of the Whips because, apparently, precisely as I stood to say that it was a courageous Budget, coincidentally all the press started turning against the Government—and it has been pretty bad ever since. I say that it is courageous because the Chancellor has started to take some difficult decisions to simplify the tax system. We have heard a good speech about charitable giving. So much of the so-called bad publicity that the Government have attracted over the Easter break—whether it be over the so-called granny tax or charitable giving or child benefit or all the other problematic areas—shows that the Chancellor is beginning to try to address these appallingly difficult structural problems.
There has been a lot of talk about the Titanic this week—nobody should worry, as I am not going to repeat the tired old cliché about deck chairs—and I think that the whole structure of the ship is wrong when it comes to the tax system. The ship is unbelievably badly built, and it is gradually sinking under us. What I have found in listening to 28 successive Budgets in this Chamber is that the tax system has become progressively more complex. It was possible 25, 30 or 35 years ago for a Chancellor to come across as providing a reasonably coherent lecture in his Budget statement—we all used to get very excited because tax on whisky or the basic rate of tax was going to go up or down by 1p—but such levels of complexity have been loaded on to the whole tax process that it has become virtually impossible for any Chancellor to come out on Budget day with any coherent proposal that is not in succeeding days unpicked and trashed because of the hundreds of pages of small print. If the structure is fundamentally flawed—it is, I think, the longest tax code in the world apart from India, and one of the most complex in the world—it is virtually impossible for any Chancellor to get a grip on it. I have never made any secret of my personal belief that we have to be prepared to be radical. We cannot just try to improve the structure; we have to go back to first steps and argue what we really believe in. What I really believe in is a much flatter—ideally, flat—rate of tax.
I have recently read an excellent book written by one of our colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), about the 19th century statesman John Bright. He was wholly uninterested in politics, but was a substantial statesman, who continually argued in terms of retrenchment, sound public services and a sound financial system. He said:
“Better teach the people something good for the future than resign oneself to work institutions already in existence”.
I suspect that too many politicians—I do not blame those on the Treasury Bench, as I know what they are paid to do—are fundamentally doing what John Bright did not want to do, which is resign themselves to work institutions already in existence. I think that the purpose of politics, certainly for those on the Back Benches, is to try as John Bright said to try to teach the people something good for the future.
I believe that this idea of a much simplified tax system or a flatter and ultimately a flat rate of tax, which has always been dismissed as an idea of the radical right, is of increasing interest to those on the left. Why? We have heard a great deal about tax avoidance, and the more complex the tax system, the easier it is to avoid it. Every time we try to deal with the problem, we create more loopholes and more difficulties, making it easier for the rich to avoid paying tax. With a much flatter—ideally, flat—rate of taxes, there is no possibility for avoidance. The TUC claims—I am sure it is right; it is not known to be a particularly right-wing organisation—that tax avoidance results in a loss to the Treasury of £13 billion a year from individuals and £12 billion a year from corporations.
To make another left-wing point, some politicians have recently had a bad press; they have been standing for various public offices or arriving in this House with good incomes outside politics, but instead of paying tax like the rest of us at the basic and then higher rates, they have put their money into private companies in order to pay much lower rates. Some politicians in America who have huge incomes, including some bidding to become President, have had a very bad press, as we found that they paid minimal rates of taxation. Why is this? It is because the tax codes in both countries are so complex that the rich and the powerful can always avoid paying tax. They cannot do that, however, under a much simplified tax system.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my hon. Friend not think that politicians should give a lead? It is not just Ken Livingstone who has been egregiously avoiding paying tax. It is clear from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that some Labour Members have been routing their funds into private service companies. Should that not be stopped; should not politicians set an example?
Mr Leigh
I do not want to ruin my argument and I do not want to lose any support that I might have from my friends on the Opposition Benches by recommending a tax on particular Labour politicians. The trouble is that there is always a huge temptation for anyone with a high income—a politician, an entertainer or a business man—to listen to the advice provided by chartered accountants. They will say, quite rightly, “Oh dear, why is a successful chap like you”—a successful chap like, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who doubtless has a very large income—“paying all this tax, when you could be setting up a small company and paying about 11%?”
In the past I have argued for a much flatter, ideally flat, rate of tax throughout earned income, but now I will be even more radical, and suggest that there is an increasing case for transposing that to small company income. I am not privileged to serve on the Treasury Bench, and I do not have teams of civil servants to advise me. I constantly come up with ideas such as this during Finance Bill debates, and I can produce figures, but I do not know whether they are correct. I have been told that a flat-rate tax of 22% with a £15,000 allowance would result in a reduction of £63 billion in tax revenue in the first year. Although I believe that the extraordinary savings that would be made through the ending of tax avoidance might well enable us to claw that back, there is no point in my simply going to the Library and then coming up with figures.
I see that the Minister is busily scribbling down every one of my pearls of wisdom at this precise moment. It would be really nice if, rather than just saying at 10 or 10.30 tonight “I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough for making such an interesting speech”, he wrote to me in the next week or two, when he has the necessary leisure, telling me—on the basis of the Treasury model—how much of the cost of avoidance could be saved through the adoption of a much flatter, or ideally a flat, rate of taxation, under which it would increasingly not be worth people’s while to try to shift their income from one pot to another. Is that, in fact, such a radical idea? Has it been tried out anywhere else? Well, of course it has.
As I have said, the size of the UK tax code has more than doubled since 1997. The present situation is absurd. The Chancellor is doing his best, but whereas 15% of taxpayers will pay a higher rate in 2012, only 3% paid it in 1978. Graphs showing the rise and fall in people’s incomes according to whether they have one child or more feature extraordinarily sudden and tremendous blips because of the child benefit clawback from people who earn more than £50,000 a year, of which I have been very critical. I do not know whether this is correct, but I have been told that a family with three children and an income of between £50,000 and £60,000 faces an additional effective marginal tax rate of 24%, on top of income tax and national insurance. I cannot believe that the Chancellor wanted to impose such a sudden, steep burden of taxation on middle-income taxpayers.
Many Members favour helping people on very low incomes. I happen to believe that the best way of helping poor people is not to churn more and more tax and benefits in their direction so that they have very high marginal tax rates—as high as 73% in the case of those who increase their earnings if they earn less than £10,000—but to take them out of tax altogether. Let me say to my Liberal friends that the one good thing that they have done in recent years is to present that argument, and I think that they have made their case. An extraordinary burden has been placed on people on lower incomes, who have been taxed far too much far too early.
I believe that my idea of a flat rate of tax is not such a radical or bad idea but one that could appeal across the spectrum, and I urge my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to consider it carefully. Otherwise, every time the Chancellor seeks to tamper with the screws and the bolts on the Titanic to ensure that those watertight compartments do not just reach halfway up the forward decks but reach the top so that the thing does not sink, he will produce a Budget that sounds good on the first day but will be unpicked and unpicked.
I think that, rather like John Bright, the Chancellor needs to see that shining light on the horizon. He needs to say, “This is my strategy, this is my philosophy, this is what I want to do. I want to say to the British people that ultimately I will take pretty much the same share of the cake as has been taken in recent years.” We all know that, for all Mrs Thatcher’s reputation for being such a right-wing radical Prime Minister, it was only after many years that, by an almost infinitesimal margin, she gradually reduced the extent of the state’s take from ordinary people. It may be impossible for the Chancellor to make a great deal of difference in those terms, but he can say, “This is my strategy. I want to be upfront and fair to the British people, so that they know exactly where they stand. If you have an income of £300,000, I will take a third of it: I will take £100,000. If you have an income of £100,000, I will take £33,000—and so on across the spectrum.” Then there will not be all the hillocks and valleys and clawbacks and allowances and churning of benefits and taxation.
I am, in a sense, sympathetic to the philosophy behind what the Chancellor has been trying to do with child benefit. Why should middle-income earners pay tax at a certain level and then be handed it back in child benefit? I agree with the Chancellor that that is absurd. However, he got himself into a dreadful mess by taking the appalling step that meant that the moment there was one higher-rate taxpayer in a family, all that family’s child benefit vanished. I thought that that was very unfair on a family in which one person worked and another, usually the wife or female partner, wanted to stay at home and look after the children. I am not suggesting that such an arrangement is better or worse than the other form of family life, but I believe that it is simply unfair, which is why I have argued for a marriage tax allowance.
I will do a deal with the Chancellor. I will give up my campaign against his reduction in child benefit and my campaign against his continued failure to introduce a marriage tax allowance, despite what he said in his manifesto, if he will say to me, “I will get rid of all these allowances, and introduce a greatly simplified tax system which is fair and equitable for all classes of people.”
I agree that there should not be a tax system that distorts people’s choices. I agree that any attempt to influence behaviour through the tax system, whether it affects marriage, children, mortgage tax relief—as in the old days—or, now, charitable giving, will produce perverse incentives. It will cause people to adjust their behaviour to reduce their tax bills rather than doing what is right, and I want people to do what they feel to be right. I want the state to be open, fair and upfront about what it is going to take, and I want the Chancellor to come to the House and say in his next Budget “This is my strategy, and this is my belief.”
I accept that—bravely, courageously, with great difficulty, and in the face of an enormous amount of bad publicity over the last three weeks—the Chancellor has taken the first essential steps towards getting rid of those allowances, and I am prepared to stand by him. I am prepared to be unpopular over the granny tax, because I can see where he was coming from. The Chancellor considered it absurd for people to be paid that allowance. Although it was apparently very popular, when there was talk of abolishing it, no one remembered that it had been introduced by Winston Churchill in 1925. I am prepared to be unpopular by supporting the Chancellor on all those issues if he is prepared to enunciate his philosophy of creating a fairer and simpler tax system. That is a fair deal, I think.
Charlie Elphicke
There is one thing that troubles me. The average income in my constituency is below £20,000 a year, so if one of my constituents gives to charity they are able to tag along the taxpayer to the tune of the basic rate. Is it not a basic unfairness that someone who pays tax at 50% is able to drag along the taxman and the public finances to double the amount that a constituent of mine on an ordinary income is able to? That seems an unfair aspect in the way the relief system has worked in recent years.
Stephen Williams
I welcome my hon. Friend’s addressing the fact that the tax system should be fair in how different individuals get relief for an activity that is to be encouraged. Perhaps the relief on pension contributions ought to be seen in the same light but I think that would be controversial among many of his colleagues. I suppose that the basic principle of gift aid relief, tax relief and what can be recovered by a charity relates to one’s net income and the money that one no longer has. It therefore has to be grossed up by the rate of tax that has already been taken off one’s income before one chose to give that money to someone else. That is the basic underlying logic.
Nia Griffith
That is extremely worrying, because there is not much point in having VAT on anything if it is not collected. Groups in my constituency that want to do up listed buildings, such the Cwrt farm project, with which I have been involved, and the Llanelli Railway Goods Shed Trust, which I chair, care for all manner of buildings in the town. The fact that they will have to pay much more VAT means that they will spend the same amount of money—the amount that they have raised, or that individuals have available to give them—but have less work done. Less of that money will be spent on wages for local people, so less money will be circulating in the local economy. Rather than finding ways of stimulating the amount of work being done, the Government seem to be trying to close everything down and provide fewer and fewer opportunities for anybody to make money.
Practically everywhere I have gone in Llanelli over the past four weeks, I have met people struck by the fact that pensioners are being punished and millionaires are getting away with a tax break. That has incensed everybody from all walks of life.
Charlie Elphicke
Can the hon. Lady tell the House exactly how many pensioners in her constituency who earn more than £10,000 a year will be affected?
Nia Griffith
I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that over the whole country, 4.4 million pensioners who earn between £10,000 and £29,000 will be affected, including a huge number in my constituency.
People are incensed—not just pensioners but their friends and relatives. They say, “This is how it’s been since the 1920s, and the change came from nowhere.” Older people like to plan; they tend to be careful and like to know what will happen. In a Budget that was leaked and leaked, this change was just pulled out of a hat like some dreadful spotted rabbit. People were appalled, given all the emphasis that had been put on other measures that might be in the Budget.
Pensioners have to face that on top of losing their winter fuel allowance, which was a universal benefit and very useful for all manner of pensioners. We are talking about pensioners who have put by a little money and made some provision for their old age. They feel aggrieved because they have tried to do the right thing. They have been hit by the VAT rises. They have been lucky that it has been a mild winter this year, but they all tell me, “Look at my electricity and gas bills.” What are the Government doing to control energy prices? Absolutely nothing. Prices have gone through the roof even though the weather has been milder than last year, and pensioners are struggling to pay those bills. Then there is the fiasco at the petrol pumps. People had already been hit by mid-March with very high petrol and diesel prices, when suddenly the Government inflamed the situation by telling everyone to rush out and panic buy. Of course, everyone now faces even higher, inflated prices at the petrol pump.
Pensioners have been hit time and again. For those on a fixed income when interest rates are low, the rampant inflation that we have experienced is particularly hurtful. Again, pensioners have been badly affected. All in all, there is a feeling that the Budget takes from the wrong people. It takes from people who spend their money locally, tend to be careful with their money, and have saved. They spend a certain amount on their grandchildren, but they will have less money to do that—all to fund the cut in the 50p tax rate for those who earn more than £150,000. For some people who earn millions, it will mean that they are not just hundreds but thousands and tens of thousands of pounds better off. That is extremely unfair.
The people I meet ask why that is happening and why we are not all in it together. They ask why the 50p rate is not kept so that there is a fairer distribution of taxes across society.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the detailed and forensic speech of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). However, unlike her, I support the Finance Bill, and hope that it will go further, particularly on business and the reductions in corporation tax. By 2014, corporation tax will be 22%—the lowest rate in the G7. I strongly believe that if the rate is cut, the take is increased. However, in cutting the rate, we also need to take firm action to stop tax avoidance and to have a new tax compact. A low rate means great responsibility, and a greater responsibility to pay the tax that is due. We need business to pay a fair share of taxes, especially multinationals that are located not here in the UK, but overseas. For too many years, they have failed to pay their fair share.
Let me give some numbers. In 1997-98, income tax raised £77 billion a year; in 2008-09, it raised £153 billion a year. In other words, income tax receipts doubled. Let us look at corporation tax. In 1997-98, corporation tax raised £30 billion; in 2008-09, it raised £43 billion, an increase of just a third. How can it be that income tax receipts doubled in the same period that corporation tax receipts went up by only a third? The rate during the period was largely unchanged. The answer is that the Labour Government allowed massive, egregious and unacceptable tax avoidance for a decade on an industrial scale. That is a disgusting record in government.
There was a massive change during that period. With the rise of the internet, tax bases were threatened, but the Labour Government were asleep at the wheel and failed to reform our tax system, and to understand and take into account the new technologies and the new threats to our tax bases.
Let us look at this massive and inexcusable tax avoidance by multinationals. Who am I talking about? I shall give a few examples. In the last financial year, it is estimated that Apple had earnings of about £6 billion in the UK. Apple has an operating margin of some 33%, meaning that profit in the UK would be roughly £2 billion. Tax attributable to UK profits should be roughly £500 million, but how much tax did Apple pay? It paid £10 million—not £500 million. That is unacceptable.
Let us take the case of Amazon. In 2010, Amazon had revenues attributable to the UK of £2.8 billion. It is estimated that it should have paid some £35 million in tax on profits of some £125 million. How much tax did Amazon pay? The answer is nothing.
Bob Stewart
So we are going to sort this, are we? Will it be sorted as soon as possible so that it does not happen again? We must ensure that it does not happen again.
Charlie Elphicke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating the next part of my speech, but let me first give some more examples.
Google revenues in the UK were £2.15 billion in 2010. Estimated UK profit was £700 million. How much tax should have been paid? Google should have paid around £180 million, but how much did it pay? It declared a loss of £22 million.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The companies would answer that they did pay the tax required by law, but my response is like the one given by their lordships in, I believe, the Aberdeen case some years ago. Their lordships said that a man is under no obligation to allow the taxman to put a greater shovel in his stores than he must by law, but my argument is that tax law should allow the taxman to put his shovel into stores so that people pay a fair and just share of taxation.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Can we be clear that the problem is the law and not the avoidance—the avoidance is legal, but the law may be wrong?
Charlie Elphicke
The law requires change. The avoidance might be legal, but HMRC is understood to be investigating a number of those companies. Because of taxpayer confidentiality, we will not know for sure until such time as a case comes before a court.
Let us take the case of eBay. Tax of some £50 million should have been paid on UK profits before avoidance, but eBay actually paid £3.4 million. Facebook should have paid £14 million, but actually paid £400,000. That level of avoidance is unacceptable. This poisoned legacy—the total failure to reform our tax system—left to us by the previous Labour Government is unacceptable. I might, if I am generous, put it down to their obsession with pursuing the prawn cocktail circuit for so many years, in the fear that if they took on business and ensured that it paid its fair share of tax, they would be less friendly with business and have less credibility.
Lorely Burt
I totally agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said so far. Does he share my concern that companies operating in developing countries should consider how they pay tax through transfer payments? Developing countries pay more—suffer worse—through not getting those payments from companies that extract their wealth than we get from our ability to tax.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my hon. Friend for her point. My point, in this case, is that we should widen the anti-avoidance measures in the Bill for our own UK territory to ensure that taxes are paid on trading profits made here. I am not making a case for an extension by proxy of the UK’s substantial international aid budget, which is 0.7% of gross domestic product. If one wants to make the case that it should be more than 0.7%, as ActionAid does, I am sure that they will make it, but I do not want to focus on that issue. I am much more interested in securing our own tax base so that we can get our deficit down by widening the tax avoidance measures in the Bill and extending them to a wider and greater reform.
Owen Smith
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument with great interest. Will he confirm whether he plans to vote with his Government on the controlled foreign companies changes that will give a reduction of about £1 billion a year to UK-based multinationals?
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman will know, first, that that means that we will get more tax in the UK and, secondly, that we already have a 0.7% commitment to the international aid budget. If he wants to pledge—a spending commitment from Labour of £1 billion or so—to extend that commitment, let him do so. I am sure that the shadow Chancellor would be fascinated.
Owen Smith
No, I am explaining to the hon. Gentleman that the Finance Bill, supported by the Chancellor, contains a measure on changes to the controlled foreign companies legislation that will reduce the revenues to the Exchequer by £1 billion per year—companies in the UK avoiding tax. Is he in favour of that?
Charlie Elphicke
Aid charities have made the case that corporations headquartered in the UK should be paying more tax overseas. That is not our job. Our job is to secure our own tax base in the UK. That is what I want to focus on, and it is what the previous Government totally failed to do over many, many years. If we put a stop to it and raise the due amount of tax from companies not resident in the UK with anti-avoidance measures and proper tax reform, we could have lower fuel duties for hard-pressed families and a lower basic rate of tax—and goodness knows we could even pay down some more of the debt that the previous Government shockingly, disgracefully saddled this country with.
I hope that the anti-avoidance measures in the Bill will be widened in the following way: the first principle is that business tax rates should be low, simple and attractive. Britain should be open for business, but open for business on a level playing field for national and international companies. Businesses should have a social responsibility to pay a fair share of tax. Some object to the idea of morality in the tax system, but this is an issue of corporate social responsibility. Tax avoidance should be dealt with firmly and rules changed to stop the avoidance. I shall come to specific measures in a moment.
For many years, the European Union has consistently and systematically sought to undermine our tax base in its pursuit of a common corporation tax base. We need the EU to support member states in protecting tax revenues rather than undermining them with so-called anti-discrimination rules.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Could the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to his view of the patent box? The Chancellor first mentioned it in last year’s Budget—I think—although it was Lord Mandelson who introduced the concept in the first place.
Charlie Elphicke
It is common ground on both sides of the House to support the patent box; in fact, I seem to recall the Labour party scrabbling to take the credit for the Chancellor’s implementing it.
Let me come to the next part of my list. Every multinational should be required to publish an effective rate of tax paid on UK revenues—from UK sources, from UK territory and from its UK trade. No Government contract should be awarded to any company that does not pay a fair share of tax in the UK. We need to get tough on multinationals that have taken us on a free ride by using conduits such as Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands or other European jurisdictions for too long. As a former tax lawyer—a poacher turned gamekeeper —I hope that the House will allow me to put forward some proposals for how to change things. The first is to reform the branch tax rules. Amazon will claim not to be here at all—“We’re in Luxembourg,” it will say—yet it fulfils its obligations here and trades here. The truth is that Amazon does business here. In the internet age, we need to widen the branch tax rules to deem a branch for UK-source profits to be in a UK territory. I hope that Treasury Ministers will consider that.
Then let us look at restrictions on deductions such as interest, royalties or management charges—all sorts of costs that are loaded on to companies and declared as deductible items, but then end up mysteriously in Ireland, Luxembourg or one of these other countries. That method is routinely used to depress UK profits. We should pursue substance over form. We should employ “look-through” rules, so that no deduction should be allowed unless tax is actually paid somewhere else. Companies will claim, “Oh, we’re using the Luxembourg tax treaty,” but we have to ask whether the tax is actually paid—that is, is it repatriated to the states where it is actually paid? Invariably, the answer is no. We need far stronger and tougher “follow-through” rules, to follow through the money chain and see whether genuine deductions have been made or whether companies are just using a money box offshore to rip off not just our system, but the states in their home jurisdictions. Often, they do just that.
Next, we should look at how the rules on personal service companies can be tightened up. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), politicians should be setting an example. Indeed, there are too many Members of Parliament with personal service companies—lately on the Opposition Benches, I have to say—who have not been behaving properly, but who should behave properly and pay a fair share of tax. When Ken Livingstone is not weeping crocodile tears, he is busy talking about how everyone else should pay tax but him. That is unacceptable. We need some truth, some reality and some leadership in our tax system. We should not just lecture everyone else, but act differently ourselves. We have had too much acting and too many actors; we need more reality, more substance, and more honesty and straighforwardness with the electorate.
We also need to reform the European Union or renegotiate the procurement and discrimination rules, so that we can properly secure our tax base. The way the European Union has systematically colluded with multinationals to undermine our tax base—costing us even more money than we already have to give it every year, in a big fat cheque that we write out for membership of that organisation—is nothing short of a scandal. We need the European Union to be our partner in ensuring that all companies pay a fair share of tax, not just in the UK but across the EU. We need the European Union to step up to the plate in these difficult times and fulfil its responsibility to help re-secure national tax bases—rather than undermining them—not just for our nation, but for all nations across Europe, which are pretty much all running deficits.
Finally, the principle that I am following is that business should pay a fair share of tax. This is about social justice as much as change and reform of the law. The fundamental deal in the tax compact is this: “A lower rate of corporation tax and lower business taxes, but no playing the system. Take corporate social responsibility to include taxation. Pay up and help us grow the economy and repair our deficit.”
Mrs McGuire
The problem is that the measure was paraded as a bit of camouflage for the reduction in tax for those earning more than £150,000 a year. On the one hand, the Chancellor was reducing tax for the wealthiest, but he was also going to attempt to clobber them. This policy did not come from the heart; it was part of the camouflage being used in the Budget.
There has also been a general sleight of hand over taxation. The Chancellor recently stated that he was “shocked” by how little the wealthy paid in taxes, yet this Budget gives a tax cut to the 14,000 people who earn £1 million a year or more. That will give them about £40,000 each year, while the average family with children earning just £20,000 will lose £253 a year from this April. That is on top of the VAT rise, which is costing the average family £450 a year. Furthermore, another 678,000 people of all ages who are currently paying the basic rate of income tax might feel pretty aggrieved when they wake up to discover that they have been catapulted into the 40p income tax rate, not because they are earning massively more but because the Chancellor has not raised the threshold in line with inflation—[Interruption.] I do not know whether I am interrupting a kind of confab of the horizontal speaking to the vertical on the other side of the Chamber, but I will continue, having drawn attention to the significant noise coming from the other side.
The Treasury forecasts suggest that there will be 5.7 million higher rate taxpayers by the end of this Parliament. That is nearly double the 3.1 million at the time of the last general election and treble the number when Labour came to power in 1997. Of course the whole increase in personal allowance that has been paraded here today is outweighed by the VAT rises, the changes to tax credits and the higher petrol duties. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary demonstrated earlier, the average family with children will be worse off—not on the basis of our figures, but on the basis of those of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Chief Secretary’s answer to my hon. Friend was both evasive and complacent.
According to Citizens Advice, poorer families that get housing and council tax benefits will be just £33 a year better off when the tax threshold rises because as their income goes up, their benefits go down. For every person eligible to pay tax who also receives housing or council tax benefit, the Department for Work and Pensions will claw back some £187 of the £220 notional annual gain. The Citizens Advice chief executive, Gillian Guy, said:
“Raising the personal tax allowance is an empty gesture for struggling families on low wages who get housing and council tax benefits. For these families, the weekly gain is less than the price of a loaf of bread”.
In the name of simplification, the Chancellor launched his £3 billion tax raid on pensioners over the next four years. The freeze in the personal allowance for pensioners will see 4.4 million pensioners who pay income tax losing an average of £83 a year from next April. People who turn 65 after next year will, of course, lose most—up to £322 a year. The additional age allowance was introduced in the 1920s in recognition of the fact that those who have retired do not have the same capacity to increase their income. It is to the undying shame of the current Chief Secretary—a man for whom I once had some respect when he was a Liberal spokesperson on welfare issues—that he came forward today to try to justify taking money from those pensioners who have no other means of increasing their income, telling them that he was doing it in the interest of simplification.
Charlie Elphicke
I do hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me for breaking into her ad hominem attacks on just about every Government Member, but I point out to her that no pensioner loses any money whatever under these proposals because of the increase in the basic state pension that the Government have put in place.
Mrs McGuire
Frankly, the increase in the state pension came about because inflation was at 5.2% in September and the Government could not get out of it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman worked for Grant Thornton when he was a tax accountant, but Mike Warburton of Grant Thornton said:
“The Chancellor is allowing age allowances to wither on the vine. He is effectively phasing them out but there is always a price to pay for simplicity.”
The burden will fall on pensioners with below average incomes. Those are not our words, but those of an eminent firm of chartered accountants.
Mrs McGuire
No, I have been generous enough with the hon. Gentleman.
Also hidden in the statement was the announcement that there would be a further cut in the DWP’s welfare budget. I do not know how many people heard the Chancellor slide over the fact that there was going to be a £10 billion cut in the DWP budget. He did not say where it was coming from; it was left hanging in the air. He made a passing reference to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and to what a wonderful job he would do in cutting £10 billion. Where is that £10 billion going to come from? Will Ministers cut the carer’s allowance? Will they make further reductions in housing benefit for those in work as well as those who are out of work? Will there be a further erosion of support for disabled people, including disabled children? Will the Treasury freeze state pensions? Ten billion pounds will not come out of thin air. It will have to be paid for, but so far we have been given no details, or even a broad-brush indication of where it will come from.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made some valuable points about the stimulation of growth. It is worth comparing what the present Government have done with some of the steps taken by our Government when we were faced with a recession—a global recession, not a recession manufactured in this country. [Interruption.] Did I hear a voice from somewhere?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
That is rather contorted logic. Saying that one aspect of the activities of a big and thriving business has a slightly higher rate of tax and so the business will suddenly not be able to give any money to charity is a leap in logic so great that it can be ignored in this case. However, I did wish to discuss the point about charitable giving, because that is one of the biggest sticks that has been used to bash this Finance Bill and the Budget with.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is odd that fish and chips should be subject to VAT but pasties should not? The sausage and egg McMuffin that I sometimes enjoy is subject to VAT, as is my Domino’s pizza and the Indian takeaway I enjoy from the Milaad Tandoori in Deal, but sausage rolls are not. Is that situation not unfair, as it subsidises pasties and sausage rolls?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I agree with my hon. Friend that VAT is a tax of immense complexity. However, it is an essential tax for the revenue-raising that this country needs and it has to include in it things that all of us like and would rather not be taxed. Equally, it will include things that some of us do not like, do not particularly wish to eat and do not mind how heavily taxed they are. If I am put the question, I would choose a sausage roll over a pasty, but I know that others have different views.
I also want to mention briefly the freezing of the threshold about which the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) spoke interestingly. Again, the Government were right. Because the big step is being taken to raise thresholds altogether, it makes absolute sense, at no cash cost to any current pensioner, to freeze this level and allow it to even out so that we have one threshold. Every time we have variance in tax levels, be they rates or thresholds, we simply employ more people at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, we have a more expensive cost of collection and we fail to achieve the objective of simplicity across the tax system.
This has been a great Budget and I wish to finish by speaking briefly about this terrible question of tax avoidance. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) when he cited that notable judge with his phrase about allowing the taxman to take the biggest shovel. If people avoid tax, that is legal because we, as Parliament, have allowed them to do so. The following clauses in part 1 of the Bill allow legal tax avoidance: 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 38, 39, 40 and 44. All those clauses in the first 50 allow tax avoidance of which the Government approve. We will all approve of some of them, because they allow MPs £30,000 tax free when they leave Parliament, allow cars that must be made secure because people are at risk to be tax free and allow people in particular situations and circumstances to pay less tax than they would in normal circumstances. The enterprise initiatives under clauses 38, 39 and 40 allow investment that the Government want to encourage. Those are all examples of tax avoidance that is liked by the Government.
We have to be fair to taxpayers. We can only expect them to follow the law of the land as it is written—the black letter law of the land. We cannot expect taxpayers to look at their affairs and say that the Government might like them, if they are feeling kind, to pay more tax than they are being asked for. None of us has an obligation to do that and it is wrong and dangerous to elide tax avoidance and tax evasion.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
When I talk to businesses in my constituency in Cornwall—this goes for families as well; a party from Shortlanesend community primary in my constituency were just in the Gallery, so some young people from Cornwall have been here today—they tell me that, in such a part of the world where we are so far away from major markets, transport infrastructure is absolutely essential and vitally important.
I very much welcome, therefore, the Secretary of State’s introduction to the debate this morning, as it underlined the Government’s commitment to ensure that we invest in our vital transport infrastructure, which is important not only for individuals but for businesses—businesses that need to get their goods and services to market.
One area of transport, which we have not touched on today but that is very important to the nation, is shipping and ports. More than 90% of the value of goods entering this country enters on ships, as does 95% of everything that we consume in this country. Of course, it has to go through a port, or we would not be able to export. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) quite rightly reminded us of the huge importance of international trade to our great country. Growth will come from exporting more of our goods and services, and they will be exported by and large on ships. Therefore, ensuring that we have the right port infrastructure to support the growth of trade—and foreign trade—in and out of our country is vital.
I therefore welcome in particular as part of the Budget—a small but important part in this context—the Chancellor’s report back on his commitment in the autumn statement to look at the planning issues surrounding ports development. I see nodding those colleagues who represent ports, because whether one represents a small port, a relatively small port in terms of shipping turnover, as I do in Falmouth, or one of our great container ports, one realises that how port operators develop those businesses is a real issue.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend will be aware that the national ports planning policy framework was recently put before the House. Does she agree that it is a positive step forward, although we should perhaps support mankind a little more vigorously and the humble shellfish a little less?
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I welcome the Budget. I particularly welcome the reduction in the rate of corporation tax. By April 2014, it will be 22%, the lowest rate in the G7. As I have previously argued, I would like us to go further and reduce business taxes, in time, to 15%. With lower taxes comes greater corporate social responsibility, however. We need a new social compact: low taxes and low rates, but business must pay up.
We need a sense of social justice and of corporate social responsibility in the tax system, especially for multinationals that are quartered overseas. Let us take the case of Google. We can examine that example because Google’s numbers are publicly available, unlike those of many other companies, and it is unfair to single out Google, as the practice that I am about to describe is widespread. It took about £2.15 billion in revenue from the UK in 2010, making an estimated £700 million profit, yet it did not pay any tax. In fact, it declared a loss of £22 million. I am all for the silicon roundabout, but it should not be a magic roundabout, in which going around it twice means not paying any tax or going round it three times, like Google, means turning a massive profit into a tax loss. Even with this routing through Ireland, it is not as if the company is paying in America either, as the effective tax rate in the United States is 2.4%. As I say, we need to take much further action. We need to know more about what other companies are doing and how much they are paying to the UK.
I thus propose a tax compact. The first element is that business tax rates should be low, simple and attractive. Secondly, however, business should have a social responsibility to pay a fair share of taxes. Thirdly, tax avoidance must be dealt with firmly and rules changed to ensure that a fair share of tax is paid. Fourthly, the European Union should support member states in protecting their tax revenues rather than undermining them at every turn, with discrimination rules gone mad, as it does at the moment. Fifthly, every multinational should publish the effective rate of tax paid on UK revenues, and no Government contract should be awarded unless a fair share of tax is paid in the UK.
These are my specific proposals. Tax is avoided by use of branch tax rules and by claiming to have a representative office and no tax presence. Used and abused are deductions of interest, royalties and management charges. We need to consider tightening the representative office rules so that people have a branch and pay a fair share of tax in the UK. We should consider tightening up on the abuse of the rules of deductions. We should consider tightening up on individuals who abuse personal service companies—and I do not mean only Ken Livingstone and a load of former Ministers, as there are many people up and down the country who have been abusing the tax system and avoiding paying tax in entirely unacceptable ways. Finally, we need reform in the European Union—first of the procurement rules and secondly of the tax rules—so that we can ensure that our tax base is protected and that people who work for the Government pay a fair share of tax to the Government on their fair profits.
Finally, on stamp duty avoidance, we need to consider an annual levy on all properties owned in a corporate wrapper—not just residential, but commercial properties should pay their fair share. I do not think that any stamp duty land tax or stamp duty predecessor was paid in relation to Canary Wharf. I think it is wrong that large commercial property companies do not pay their fair share as everyone else does. Everyone should pay a fair share of tax; that is what corporate social responsibility should be about. That is social justice. That is the deal in the tax compact: a lower rate of corporation tax, lower business taxes—but no playing the system.
Owen Smith
The principal reason why we did not introduce it was because the economy was growing through most of our period in government, unlike the economy under her Government.
Let us return to the taxable income elasticity measure. The OBR says that it might be reasonable, but it also says on no fewer than seven occasions throughout the document that there is “huge uncertainty” around the assumptions—not small uncertainty, but huge uncertainty. The Treasury itself, in its document—albeit buried on page 68 of 69—says:
“The results of this evaluation are highly uncertain.”
The reality is that, based on the Laffer curve, the Government have made up that £100 million number, but over the last year we got £1 billion from the 50p rate.
Charlie Elphicke
There is more evidence that reducing the rate ups the take. Each time there was a reduction, from 80% to 60% in the ’80s, and then to 40%, revenues went up hugely. We know that it works, from the evidence.
Owen Smith
What we know is that last year we got £1 billion from the rate—not £100 million, but £1 billion. What we also know is that the OBR thinks the estimate of £100 million is highly dubious. That is the reality. If we had waited two or three years—a reasonable period—to make the estimate, when people would not be able to pull the money into an earlier year, which is increasingly difficult as the years go by, we should have seen a reasonable number.
The real issue is not the estimate, but what will actually happen as a result of the Government’s cooking the books in that fashion. Ordinary people will pay the price. In this country, 4.77 million pensioners will pay between £80 and £280 extra as a result of the changes to the personal allowance. That is the reality of the Budget, not what the hon. Gentleman describes.
What about the 1.3 million ordinary working people earning about £41,000 who have been sucked into the 40p rate? We have not heard a lot about them in the Budget. We have not heard about the teachers, policemen and middle managers who will be paying more, or indeed about the 1.3 million who will be affected by the big cut in their child benefit—£1,300 for most of them. That is the reality of the Budget for ordinary working people.
Many Members talked about business and growth. We heard a fascinating contribution from the hon. Member for West Suffolk about the need for an interventionist business and industrial strategy. I completely agree. There were two measures in the Budget along those lines: one was for video games and the other was the patent box that is said to be benefiting GSK. I know a bit about the patent box, because I was one of the industry side negotiators with the Labour Government back in 2009 when we struck the deal on the patent box. It was not a Tory policy—an industrial strategy made not by the Tories, but by Labour, and we are now reaping the benefits.
What about the video games measure? The hon. Gentleman thinks of himself as a bit of a historian of economic facts, so he should look back to the first Budget of his great friend the Chancellor, when the right hon. Gentleman got rid of tax relief for video games. Two years later, with the video games industry pointing out that it was a really duff move, the Government have reinstated the relief: not a policy made on the Tory side, but on the Labour side.
What is the reality? It is 0.1% extra growth, 4.77 million pensioners paying the price, inflation still at 3.2% and wages only up 1.4%. The reality is that the Government are ill serving our economy and ill serving Britain. They do not know what they are doing. They are making a mess and the time has come for us to think again.
Budget Leak Inquiry
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gauke
We ought to put the matter into proportion. The idea that someone would be able to identify a property and exchange contracts in the course of a morning is highly unlikely. As I have said, I have no reason to believe that the Treasury was in any way involved in briefing that particular item, but there was a lot of speculation that there would be something on properties, and that speculation turned out to be correct.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that such discussion as that which took place between the coalition parties leading up to the Budget is more healthy—more open and transparent—for our democracy than leaving things all in the hands of one, lone control freak?
Mr Gauke
I certainly agree that we do not want to return to the days when a Chancellor, in close co-operation with his special adviser, worked in a sort of secret bunker, not sharing any information with anyone, including the Prime Minister. That is not healthy, and, as we saw, it did not result in sensible tax policy making.
Amendment of the Law
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann McKechin
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should remember that under this Government, unemployment among women is at its highest for more than 23 years. The Chancellor did not make one mention of what he will do about that scandal.
The Lib Dem part of the Government has made great play of the increase in personal allowances, but more than 70% of that benefits higher and middle earners and fails to benefit those at the lowest levels, who already do not pay income tax. I point out to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that, funnily enough, the majority of them are women.
While middle earners stand to gain £379 when the threshold reaches £10,000, low earners on housing benefit and council tax benefit will gain only a paltry £57, as the rest will be tapered away. Overturning the perverse reductions in tax credits, which increased child care costs and penalised those trying to work on the lowest income scales, would have helped those in need the most. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) said, pensioners will also bear the burden as the years go on.
It is estimated that the reduction in tax credits on child care from 80% to 70% has pushed tens of thousands of parents out of the labour market, with 44,000 fewer families claiming support in December 2011 than in April that year. We have a Chancellor who thinks that it should be no problem for a cleaner to increase their hours from 16 to 24 hours a week to claim tax credits. Frankly, that is the reaction of someone living in a parallel universe, who fails to listen to those who have to attempt the challenge at a time when overtime and extra hours are almost impossible in most low earning jobs. As the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers reported yesterday, two thirds of those already receiving tax credits who are about to lose them next month already live in poverty: 200,000 couples with children face losing £3,870 per annum and an extra 80,000 children will be pushed into poverty by this one measure. It is immoral, unfair and unjust. I wait to see if anyone on the Government Benches can mount any argument to support such an outrageous measure, given that it completely fails their own core test of making work pay in every case. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will see sense and postpone the measure until universal credit is in place. If we are all in it together, why was there no mention of that today? It is a scandal of the Budget.
As the Scottish TUC pointed out in its Budget submission, it is now indisputable that Government policy is hitting wages much harder than profits. Indeed, as I pointed out at last week’s Business, Innovation and Skills questions, UK companies are now sitting on the highest ratio of cash reserves of any major western economy. That is not only unfair, but bad economics. We need more of those profits to be converted into real investment, and we need a much greater rise in consumption if we are ever to achieve the necessary higher growth.
The Government’s austerity plan has led to lower tax receipts and further downward revisions of growth, which is exactly the opposite of what we need. The Business Secretary has asked for a report on how to release company cash reserves. I welcome that, but I detect a complete lack of focus or priority in tackling the issue, just as I do in efforts to achieve a coherent industrial policy. Where is the Budget to create jobs? Where is the analysis to explain why, in the past year, female unemployment in Scotland and across the UK has increased by more than 17% , but male employment has increased by only l%? Where is the analysis on the increasing move into involuntary part-time working? Where is the analysis and policy on how to shift jobs into the industrial and manufacturing sectors, and to retrain those who have lost their jobs to enable them once more to hold down secure employment? Answer is there none.
The fact that we now have the highest female unemployment in 23 years was ignored in today’s Budget speech. That is not going to go away, and I fear that the consequences have been heavily underestimated by the Government, economists and our media. Far more women work in the public sector, and increasingly, men enter and compete for traditionally female-dominated work in the private sector. We are told that three quarters of public sector reductions are still to come, with the inevitable contraction of the work force, but there is absolutely no planning on how to create new jobs for the many women who will seek work.
Announcements on infrastructure are welcome, but construction jobs are entirely male dominated. Only about 1% of electricians are female, for example, and we have the lowest proportion of female engineering professionals of any EU nation, at less than 9%. The Government need to use procurement in such a way that will encourage and increase the numbers of women. There is an example for them to follow—the Olympic Delivery Authority has got more than 1,000 women into work in construction jobs—and I want to ensure that that good practice is followed throughout every major Government procurement programme to come.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need more women in work, and to look after women and take them out of tax, which is what the Government are doing. Nevertheless, she mentions jobs. In her constituency in the last Parliament, unemployment increased by 44%; in this Parliament it has hardly changed. Does she agree that the previous Labour Government’s policies caused massive damage to this country?
Ann McKechin
The hon. Gentleman distorts the employment figures in my constituency and my city, where jobs were growing before this Government started to suppress demand and consumption and to take away huge amounts in benefit. I do not want women out of tax; I want them to get better-paid jobs so that they are in a position to pay tax. That is the fundamental problem, and taking people out of tax is an acceptance of it. Far too many people work in jobs that are too low-paid, but we are not doing anything about it.
As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others have repeatedly pointed out, we have a high level of under-employment in this country—4 million to 6 million people are in that category. The Scottish TUC has calculated that more than 0.5 million people, or more than 17%, are either unemployed or under-employed. Tax and benefit changes do nothing to change that long-term lack of demand for jobs.
The Government had the opportunity today to move away from their failed policy of austerity and to focus on stimulus for growth and jobs. They have failed, but the consequences will stay with this country and the communities we represent for many years to come. I am sure that point will depress many hon. Members, and it should depress all hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Derek Twigg
I have just started. Can hon. Members hang on a second? I am sorry to excite them so much. I am happy to give way to one of them in a minute.
As we heard today, it is also a cut for many in the Cabinet. It is a £40,000-plus tax cut for millionaires—an amazing amount.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman said that this is a tax cut for millionaires. If Labour feels so strongly about this, why has the shadow Chief Secretary just been on the television refusing to commit to scrapping it? Does he regret that and think that she should rethink that position?
Derek Twigg
We are here to discuss the Chancellor’s Budget. He is suggesting that it is a fair Budget that helps particularly low-paid people, but, as we have seen, it helps the richest, not least some on his own Benches. Let us be clear about that.
Again, on personal allowances, we need to look at the detail. Let us consider the cuts to working family tax credits and the loss of child benefit. On the latter, by the way, the Chancellor used the phrase “cliff edge”, but we are still on the cliff edge—it is just a bit more complicated to get to it. That is the big change. Then there is the cost of living—energy prices, food prices and, interestingly, petrol prices. The Chancellor used to attack Labour over petrol prices when we were in government. I remember the fuel tax demonstrations. We have not seen many of them recently but the Chancellor has done nothing to ease the burden. We know what he did for VAT. That is what added to the cost of petrol and fuel for the people of this country. But the Chancellor did nothing. Many of my constituents have written to me asking that the Chancellor do something about it, so they will be bitterly disappointed today.
Stephen Williams
I cannot give way any more.
In this Budget, our Liberal Democrat priority was to move further and faster towards our goal of £10,000 tax-free pay. Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government are therefore delighted by the confirmation that the rise in the personal allowance of £1,100 will proceed in April 2013. It is the largest rise in the personal allowance for 30 years—that is, in all our working lifetimes. In April 2013, people will be able to earn £9,205 without paying tax, which will lift a further 840,000 people out of tax. Over three years, 2 million British people will have been raised out of income tax. That will help everyone who works part time, the majority of whom are women. The measures will lift young people on the minimum wage out of income tax altogether, and 24 million basic rate taxpayers will be better off to the tune of £546. These changes will allow people to keep more of their own money. They will inject spending power into local economies and they will make work pay.
As the front page of the Liberal Democrat manifesto promised, we have delivered more than £500 into the pockets and purses of Britain as a result of this Budget. It will have been obvious from the fact that my colleagues were waving their Order Papers earlier that we are extremely pleased to have achieved that. Let us contrast it with the last Budget under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), when Labour MPs waved their Order Papers following the abolition of the 10p tax rate. There could not be a greater contrast between the priorities of this coalition Government and those of the last Labour Government.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Budget shows how effective partnership working can be in the coalition? Has he seen chart B.1 in the Red Book, which shows that those in the top decile—that is, the most well off—will experience the greatest reduction in income? They are being made to pay, despite Labour’s 1970s class war rhetoric.
Stephen Williams
I shall come to how the Budget will affect the most well off in society shortly.
Our second objective in the Budget was to rebalance the tax system, so that taxes would fall lightly on work and enterprise and more heavily and effectively on wealth. Already, this coalition Government have raised capital gains tax from the historically low rates that we inherited from the last Labour Government, and there have been no changes to inheritance tax. Some people might have wanted to drop the 50p tax rate altogether. However, we all know that 2012 is going be a difficult year for families up and down the country, and Liberal Democrats have been clear that now would not have been the right time to reduce the top rate of tax. I am pleased that the Chancellor has agreed with our position.
By April 2013, our top rate of tax will be in line with that of our competitor states in the European Union and the United States of America, but we will also have effective taxes on wealth in place by then. Stamp duty will be 7% on house sales of more than £2 million. We might not have got a mansion tax in this Budget, but we have certainly got a mansion duty. That mansion duty alone—just that one measure—will raise three times the amount lost through the lowering of the 50p tax rate by 5p.
The third objective that we set in this Budget was to take action on tax avoidance, and I am therefore pleased by the introduction of a 15% charge on personal property that is under corporate ownership. I am pleased that tycoons will have the reliefs that they claim restricted to 25% of their income, and I am particularly pleased that the general anti-avoidance rule for which I have argued for so long is to be introduced by this Government. I see that rule as a kind of electric fence across the tax system: a clear warning to every taxpayer that this is a line that they must not cross.
The Budget makes further changes to rebalance the economy, to restore green growth to the economy and to build on Britain’s strengths in engineering and the creative industries. In 2012, we shall see the launch of the green deal, which was spearheaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), when he was Secretary of State, and which is now being taken forward by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey). Last weekend, I witnessed the demonstration projects that are already taking place in my constituency under the Bristol Green Doors initiative, which are showing what every householder can do to take advantage of the green deal. Also in 2012, the green investment bank will be making its first investments.
The creative industries are incredibly important to our national economy, and I was pleased that video games were given recognition in the Budget. As a Bristol and west country MP, I was particularly pleased to see the extension of film tax credits to the television industry. The Chancellor mentioned Wallace and Gromit. Despite Wallace’s Lancashire accent, their home is of course Bristol. The films are made in my constituency by Aardman Animations, Europe’s largest animation company. It is incredibly important to the economy of Bristol and is a great British brand that sells millions of pounds of exports all over the world.
Mr Denham
I am happy to include that test. One of the missed opportunities will turn out to be in the low-carbon economy that will dominate the global economy in the 21st century.
Things have turned out so much worse than in the heady days of the new Chancellor’s optimism when he told us in his first speech that the economy was set to grow steadily; that unemployment would fall year on year; that the deficit would drop like a stone, yet front-line services would be protected; that the private sector would expand magically, more than filling the space left by public services; that the banks would lend; and that the whole tiresome infrastructure of regional investment, job guarantees for young people and a coherent planning system could simply be swept away. Well, the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and the whole coalition were wrong.
The spending cuts, drawing billions out of the economy, were too far and too fast. The Government’s gloomy talk first unnerved and depressed consumers; then the VAT hike took money from them when we needed them to spend. Now the cuts are really beginning to bite. The Government were so cocksure and complacent that they strung together, purely for cynical political purposes, a series of half-baked, ineffective measures that were more or less abandoned as soon as the last press release had been issued: the national insurance holiday; the regional growth fund that does not pay out any money for months or years; the business growth fund with few investments; the special support for exporters with a handful of users; the Work programme that does not work; Project Merlin; and the youth contract that has not even started two years after the future jobs fund was scrapped. Any right hon. or hon. Member who gets excited by any measures announced in a press release for this Budget should remember what happened to the last lot.
Opportunities were missed—to tax bank bonuses, to fund real jobs for young people, to cut VAT for families, to cut national insurance contributions for small businesses taking on staff, to bring forward infrastructure spending. But what did we get? Just a feasibility study on Monday of this week, two years after the need was first identified. No, the short-term measures have failed, and we have seen no change.
Fairness has been well debated today. Let us remember one point—in April, families with children, taking into account the personal allowances and all the other changes, will be £530 worse off on average. When we look at next year’s personal allowances, I am sure it will also be clear, when the dust has settled and the IFS has done the figures that take into account all the other changes, that those families will still be worse off. Hon. Members should look at the Red Book and see which families are going to pay a higher proportion of their income, and it is those on low incomes.
This Government have been mired in unfairness from the beginning. We should remember that one of their first actions was to cancel changes to pension tax relief, which would have brought in £1.6 billion from the very highest earners in this country. We did not hear the Chancellor reminding us of the things he has already done to tilt the system to those best able to get through the next few years. I believe that the Government will pay the price for that.
The truth is that it is not a matter of whether stamp duty brings in more money or whether the anti-avoidance measures—the Government should tackle avoidance in any case—bring in more money. The challenge for this Government and this Budget was to devote every single available penny to raising the incomes of hard-pressed low and middle-income families and to get the economy growing. There was no justification for singling out the highest rate of income tax on earnings over £150,000 a year. The average person in work in my constituency will have to work for seven and a half years to earn £150,000. To single out that higher-earning group and to cut their tax was wrong.
This was not the fairness in tough times that the country needed, but the other failure in the Budget was the failure to lay the foundations for the economy that we need in the future. The truth is that despite the pressure on the public finances, there is no shortage of money to rebuild the economy. UK companies are cash-rich. Sovereign wealth funds are out there. There are pension funds, closer to home, with money to invest.
Mr Denham
I will not give way, because I have only a few minutes left. The problem is that those bodies are not investing, or at least not investing in Britain. The reasons are clear: in the short term, Government mistakes have caused the economy to stagnate, and there is also no certainty—no “compelling vision”, as the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills rightly put it. Some of us thought it was his job to come up with a compelling vision, but he is right that it is not there. There is no predictability.
Goodness knows it took my Government long enough to take a decision on Heathrow. That decision was then cancelled, and then ruled out. Today in the Budget, we find that Heathrow is back on the agenda. Billions of pounds of business investment cannot take place because of the failure of Governments to take that decision, one way or another. That uncertainty and unpredictability runs through the Government’s business failures. Low-carbon energy manufacturing and services will dominate the 21st-century global economy, but the Chancellor says that he does not like the environmental policies, while the Deputy Prime Minister says that he does. We had illegal flip-flops on feed-in tariffs, which means that a whole group of investors will never come back and invest in green energy again. Those on the Government Benches have no idea that business needs certainty and predictability, not short-term changes.
We have today heard all that stuff about the oil industry. In last year’s Budget, the Government massively increased the risk penalties for investing in the North sea by means of a last-minute political gimmick that changed the tax regime that applied there; again, that meant uncertainty and unpredictability. Despite the Chancellor’s words, there is no serious attempt to identify the technologies and capabilities that will give us the ability to compete in future. The odd speech here and the odd announcement and press release there does not match up to the job—not when we look at what our competitors are doing.
Today, we again heard about broadband, but what did the former chief operating officer of BT say about the Government’s broadband strategy in another place just a couple of days ago? He said that it was so weak that this country will be
“frozen out of the next industrial revolution”.
Just because there is a mention in the Red Book about the broadband strategy does not mean that there is one, or that it is good enough, so it is a no on that third test, which is probably the most crucial.
The next few weeks, months and years will be hard for everybody. People in this country are stoic. They will tolerate a lot if they think that the right things are being done to build a future for their children and families, and to give us long-term security. The Government do not have a clue how to create the conditions in which investment will take place, business will grow, and we pay our way and have the jobs and wealth that the people of this country desire. The Budget is unfair, has missed opportunities, and will fail the country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Should we not look at providing tax help for hard-pressed families in totality and in the round, in particular, through measures such as increasing the personal allowance to £10,000 for income tax?
Miss Smith
I certainly agree, and my hon. Friend will know, just as other Members of this House do, that that measure would take more than 1 million low-income earners out of tax altogether, which is a healthy start and a step on the path to our economic recovery.