Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted to hear that he would have resigned regardless, but he must surely have some regret. Perhaps we should be glad that he resigned, given that he stood up in this Chamber, as a former Secretary of State, and tried to persuade the House that Operation Stack and having trucks and lorries queued up at our ports was positive for the country. I have never known a former Secretary of State to look at something like Operation Stack, which would be a tragedy for our economy had it continued for much longer, and turn it into a positive. If that is the kind of argument he is offering to this House and to the country, we should ensure that we vote down most of these amendments.

I find it extraordinary that after going through this process—these debates give me déjà vu—we are still hearing arguments about the customs union and the single market. The Government managed to botch together what is now called the Chequers agreement and now, a week away from this Parliament adjourning for the summer recess, they have completely torn it apart by again pandering, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said, to 30 or 40 people on the hard right of the Conservative party. Those people would be being much more honest if they just stood up and said that they want the cliff-edge hard Brexit, rather than tabling amendments that drive a coach and horses through the agreement that the Government managed to reach.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the 163 independent members of the WTO are somehow teetering on a cliff edge or doing something rather odd? Are they not just normal trading nations that trade freely with each other? I find his “cliff edge” statement rather peculiar, because it does not treat the facts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that I had to attend a Statutory Instrument Committee, but I was present at the beginning and I am here now. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who brought us back to the detail of the Bill, which is where I wish to focus my remarks.

I was concerned that the proposed dumping methodology might not address the UK steel industry’s concerns, so I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has tabled amendment 25. I am also pleased that the Government have engaged with Members from all parties and that last week, in response to a written parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), they underlined their commitment to

“protecting UK industry where it is suffering injury as a result of dumped imports.”

The Government went on to say that they would not allow that to happen and would use mechanisms for the calculation of dumping methods that, on the face of it, seem to have the support of industries such as steel and ceramics. I very much welcome the fact that the Government have listened and have worked with key industries during the Bill’s progress through Parliament.

I am less convinced by the situation in relation to the economic interest test. I was rather hoping that, in line with the rhetoric that we heard throughout the whole argument for leaving the European Union, we would take advantage of the opportunity that leaving the European Union offered to reduce any bureaucratic pressure on industries such as steel, rather than adding to their bureaucratic pressures. The economic interest test in the Bill adds extra layers compared with what currently exists in the European Union, so we have the genius of a Government bringing forward something even more complex than what we already have in the European Union. I did not think that was the purpose of what we were doing; perhaps I was naive.

In Committee, we expressed concerns about the proliferation of economic interest tests that have been built into the regime and that measures must pass before tariffs can be introduced. Of particular concern was the fact that such tests will first be conducted by the independent Trade Remedies Authority and then again by the Secretary of State, theoretically on a completely different basis. As such, we have pushed for the Secretary of State’s power in relation to the tests to be curtailed and at most to act as a sense-check on what the TRA has conducted. Anything more than that will introduce an unacceptable level of potentially political interference into the process. It will be an unnecessary block on what is happening. The real worry is that it will delay the introduction of trade remedies and thereby potentially subject industry to more damage. However, the Government have tabled amendments 103 and 108, which go some way towards addressing the concerns I have just outlined.

Government amendments 110 to 112 and 116 to 118 seek to deal with the replication of tests, but they would not do that sufficiently well, so I shall support amendment 21, tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which would achieve a better outcome.

Finally, let me say a little about safeguard measures and adjustment plans. I am concerned that the Government intend to require any industry that requests safeguard measures to submit adjustment plans to demonstrate how it will adjust to new market circumstances, before any safeguard investigation can be launched. In essence, that would require an industry to demonstrate what changes it was making to its operations, including efficiencies and rationalisations, before a safeguard investigation could even start. UK Steel and others have pointed out that in situations such as those we currently face in relation to US section 232 tariffs, such a requirement would be unjustified. Industry should not have to make major adjustments to deal with what is likely to be a temporary situation introduced by the non-WTO-compliant actions of another Government. I am therefore pleased that the Government have tabled amendment 113 to modify the requirement, allowing the TRA to waive the requirement when it deems it necessary or suitable. It would, though, be better if that pressure on industry—at a point at which it is already under significant pressure—were not there.

I wanted to put those concerns on the record so that the Government have the opportunity to make further improvements to the Bill as it makes progress in the other place and before it comes back to this House.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I rise to speak to amendment 73, tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and which I wish to move at the appropriate time.

It now has to be a settled will that in future we are not going to be in the, or a, customs union with the European Union. That became clear during the hours of debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in this place and the other place, and that Bill became an Act. It is clear in the Chequers deal and the White Paper on the future relationship. The statement “We will not be in the customs union” has passed through the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House and Mansion House speeches, and through her statements on the Floor of the House on occasions far too numerous to mention.

We are not to be in a customs union. That was clearly the compact with the public made by the Conservatives and the Labour party in their manifestos last year. It is clearly the will of the people, as expressed in the June 2016 referendum. I do not think there can be any doubt about the clarity, because it was mentioned by all involved in that debate, no matter what side they supported. It is clearly the will of the people, of the Prime Minister and of the Cabinet. Similarly, when we negotiated and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, it was the will expressed by a majority of this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said earlier in an intervention that, were it necessary for there to be a customs union with some part of the world, there would need to be, at the right time, primary legislation that would also incorporate any requirements in the Government’s proposed new section 16A, which I am trying to nullify with amendment 73. I certainly hope that, given those settled wills, my amendment will be supported by the Government because anything else does not square with the manifesto on which we were elected and it certainly does not square with the manifesto on which the Labour party was elected either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leslie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I will; I would enjoy continuing my speech so please intervene.

[Mr Leslie]

Did the hon. Gentleman notice that, in March 2016, the European Union agreed, on the so-called tampon tax issue, to allow zero-rating? Therefore, the point that he made is completely debunked.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I am sorry, but that must have passed me by. I know that, to get around the difficulties that were caused by the tampon tax and the significant debate that we had in this Chamber, of which I was a part, the Government agreed to sort of equal the amount that was collected to pass it to charity. So it seems bizarre that we have not taken the steps that are available.

The other thing about going along with the VAT directives and how VAT is managed is that we have been subject to the missing trader intra-community fraud, the so-called carousel fraud, which cost this country £1.7 billion last year. It is estimated to cost the EU as a whole into the tens of billions of pounds. Over the period of the administration of VAT in its current form, it could have cost anything up to £100 billion across the EU. Are we really saying that these failed systems are something that we want to be attached to in perpetuity?

The Prime Minister has said very clearly that we will be in control of our tax policy. Just last week, following Chequers, the Secretary of State for the Environment also confirmed that we cannot actually set our own taxes as we would wish to at the moment because VAT is set in accordance with EU rules. That is another area in which we will be sovereign. Amendment 73 would make sure that, no matter what the future holds, primary legislation will be needed to do this. We cannot have the vestiges of some of the worst VAT rules that anybody could ever imagine remaining on our statute book. For that reason and given that powerful debate on the tampon tax, I certainly hope that others across this House will support that amendment this evening.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the hon. Gentleman completed his oration?

[Craig Mackinlay]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

He has. We are grateful to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The simple fact is that we need an HMRC that is fit for the 21st century, for the new digital ways in which we are working, and for our targeted approach on clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance, for example. That requires these sophisticated hubs that have the right skills to do that job, so I defend our reorganisation entirely.

On the portrayal of the economy that the hon. Lady has just given, we have the highest level of employment in our history, more women in work than at almost any time in our history and unemployment lower than at any time in the past 45 years. We are bearing down on the deficit and have debt falling as a percentage of GDP.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to invest in infrastructure in Kent.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that every part of the country has a modern and efficient infrastructure. In Kent, the extent of superfast broadband has risen from 33% to 95% since 2010, and the South East local enterprise partnership has secured £590 million for 30 transport schemes. Work has recently begun on a £105 million upgrade to junction 10a of the M20.

[Craig Mackinlay]

Given that Kent is on the frontline of EU border trade and that local plans involve the potential of more than 100,000 new homes over the next 15 years, will my hon. Friend consider investing in the dualling of the A2 and the A256 to improve traffic flows and resilience in east Kent?

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend makes a very sensible point. The dualling of the A2 near Dover was raised as an issue in Highways England’s route strategy for Kent and is being considered alongside other investments. The A256 is part of the indicative major road network and the Department will be publishing the final network by the end of the year. If it is included, it will be a matter for the local authority, working with the subnational transport bodies, to determine whether to bid into the fund.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

What we have seen in the past few years, since 2015, is a 7% rise in the real wages of people on the lowest incomes, and a reduction in income inequality.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

T8. With the full phasing in of the residents’ nil-rate band for inheritance tax by 2020, a couple will potentially be able to leave £1 million free of inheritance tax to descendants. That is all very welcome, but having worked through the legislation in a real example, it seems unduly complex. Will my right hon. Friend now consider simplifying the law to make the overall IHT allowance a simple, no-nonsense £500,000 each and remove the complexity of the residents’ nil-rate band rules?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend talks about complexity. The Office for Tax Simplification is looking into the way in which inheritance tax and the regime operate. Changing the way that tax reliefs operate in the way that he describes would add very significant cost. However, we do, of course, keep all taxes under review.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

I rise to speak to amendments 39 and 40, which are in my name. I want to say at the outset that while Scottish National party Members have felt the need to bring back some elements from Committee, we do on the whole welcome and support the Bill. We just want to see some improvements, which we hope will help to protect consumers and those accessing financial products. It is a shame that on the third attempt to consider the Bill we may still not get time to consider the second group of amendments, and in particular those tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), which we are keen to consider. However, I will proceed as quickly as possible so that we might get to the second group in good time.

First, amendment 39 would require that specially trained advisers and guidance are made available to people in vulnerable circumstances and would provide an indicative list of what “vulnerable circumstances” should include. It is positive that the Government decided to amend the Bill in the House of Lords to include a reference to the needs of vulnerable people within the functions of the new single financial guidance body. However, we feel that the Government should go further.

The amended version of the clause remains a little weak with regard to the inclusion of vulnerable people. Our amendment would make things more explicit and strengthen that objective by providing more detail as to who may fall into this remit, using the term “people in vulnerable circumstances”, which we think is more appropriate. The circumstances illustrated in our amendment can have a significant impact on people’s finances and long-term savings plans.

People in difficult financial circumstances may be more likely to use new pension freedoms, at a cost to their long-term pensions saving. Attractive as the pension freedoms may sound, it is clear that the Government have not put in place adequate safeguards for older people who are opting to free up funds, to ensure they will not end up in a desperate financial situation later. Those with less money are more vulnerable to economic shocks in their personal circumstances, as well as being potentially more vulnerable to scammers who give misleading or false advice for a fee, as we heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey).

Being a carer or disabled can incur extra lifestyle costs. We want to ensure that the new body is as accessible as possible for all people, regardless of their circumstances. Specially trained advisers and resources must make up part of the new body, so that people can have confidence in its ability to support people in vulnerable circumstances.

The Minister said in Committee that our amendment was too prescriptive, but that does not really stand up. There is plenty in the Bill that is prescriptive and detailed. The new financial guidance body will be looking to the content of the Bill to understand what its objective and remit are. We are simply ensuring that the new body is absolutely clear that catering for those who find themselves in vulnerable circumstances should be a significant part of its remit. The wording of clause 2 makes that sound like an afterthought. That is an important discussion to be had alongside the duty of care, which I will come to later.

Amendment 40 would require the new body to ensure that consumers are made aware of the differences between information, guidance and advice, so that they can specify what type of services they require from it. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) tabled an amendment that would require the new financial guidance body to define the meaning of those services. The Minister said that that would potentially duplicate available definitions set out in regulations, but he also seemed to think that we asked for a definition because it would be useful for the body itself. That was not our purpose. Our purpose was to ensure that consumers themselves understand what services they have access to. We are tabling this amendment with tweaked wording to make it clear that we are asking that the new financial guidance body communicates clearly what services it provides people with and what they can access.

Guidance, information and advice are very different things. People expecting advice on what route to take may be disappointed to receive various information only. Likewise, there may be issues around exactly what the body is allowed to advise and to what extent it is able to advise on options available. Through this amendment, we are simply highlighting how important it is to ensure that users understand what they are getting.

Government new clauses 4 and 9 give the Secretary of State power to ban cold calling related to pensions and other consumer financial products. The Government have also tabled amendments to bring forward commencement of those clauses. The SNP and the Scottish Government have campaigned hard on cold calling, so we are pleased to see those provisions in the Bill. It is a positive step that the Government have tabled amendments 45 and 46, which will speed up the process for putting in place the necessary regulations for banning cold calling. It is clear that consumers want action now.

On the Government’s amendments, there is a concern that the Government are treating claims management companies’ cold calling and pensions or financial products cold calling differently. In Committee, the Government introduced clause 34, banning cold calling for CMCs unless the consumer has given their consent. With the two amendments on pensions and financial advice cold calling, the Secretary of State is giving herself a get-out clause, to shirk responsibility for taking action. Cold calling is cold calling. Consumers simply do not want to be bothered by nuisance calls, as we have already heard from the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). Creating a complex framework around which providers are allowed to make these calls, on what types of product, under what circumstances, is over-complicating a very simple issue. People just want it to stop.

Will the Secretary of State, or the Minister who responds to the debate, explain why they think the need to ban CMCs’ cold calling is greater than the need to ban pensions or financial products cold calling? Tough action needs to be taken on this; otherwise, we risk creating loopholes that will allow cold callers to continue to operate.

I want to mention the duty of care amendment: new clause 6, tabled by Members on the Labour Front Bench. My colleagues spoke about it in detail on Second Reading, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who sadly cannot be here today to speak on it again. Applying a duty of care to CMCs would be a positive step in ensuring that such companies remain accountable for their actions if they cause harm to consumers.

Ideally, all financial institutions should have the best interests of vulnerable consumers at the heart of their conduct, but we all know that that is not always the case, and the fact that the Financial Conduct Authority has agreed to bring forward a discussion paper on duty of care is really positive. Macmillan has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and I thank its staff for the briefings that we received ahead of these debates. We hope that the Secretary of State and Ministers will give serious thought to this idea, as well as to our amendment on vulnerable persons, which ensures that the single financial guidance body expressly allocates resources for specialist support for people in vulnerable circumstances.

The SNP has long called for and campaigned for action on cold calling. Indeed, it was the subject of a ten-minute rule Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. We welcome the fact that there is to be progress in this regard, but this area of the Bill is becoming a bit of a guddle. That is why we would obviously prefer to see powers over this area devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so that we could take more robust action, such as was suggested by the Scottish Government’s action plan on nuisance calls. Indeed, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, Keith Brown, has written to the UK Government many times, asking for them to take a tougher line on nuisance calls.

Nuisance callers blight our society and cause significant distress, particularly to the elderly and vulnerable people. Such harassment is unacceptable and must be stopped. Hopefully, in the time we have available, we will take the opportunity to make some necessary improvements to the Bill.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I shall restrict my observations to pensions cold calling and unsolicited marketing thereon.

Last year, I was pleased to play a part in the scrutiny of the Pension Schemes Act 2017. It was timely legislation to ensure that pension savers were adequately protected as they saved, during the working period of their life, by the regulation of master trusts, which had previously been rather worryingly lightly regulated—insufficiently so, when for many, their pension will be their primary asset in life.

I am pleased that this Bill will bring together the Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise into a single financial guidance body, under the control of the FCA. I am further pleased to support the Government’s amendments, especially new clauses 4 and 9. It is right that the new clauses in the name of the Government allow the making of regulations to prevent cold calling and the sending of unsolicited direct marketing materials relating to pension savers. That is further strengthened in Government amendment 10.

At the core of what we shall hear in the House this afternoon is whether “may” should become “must”. That is at the core of an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and Willingdon —amendment (a) to Government new clause 9. There is a case for healthy competition. That usually results in lower charges, and that can be—can be—good for consumers. It would be a draconian measure to ban advertising, to entirely ban direct marketing, because that could be banning choice. It is often good advice for pension savers who have accumulated a pension pot to move to a provider who may provide a better pension, perhaps at a lower cost, with lower charges. That decision now rests with pension providers. If they do not act sensibly, that “may” in Government new clause 9 will, in certain circumstances, become a “will.” That is an important power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman talks about a total pot in the trillions, but for the vast majority of people, particularly part-time workers, their pot, although better than nothing, will be relatively small. Does he agree that several groups are still excluded from auto-enrolment, and that the Government need to do something to bring them in?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. There is a wide debate—I have taken part in it—about whether the self-employed are playing a full role in getting pension provision. I think that there are measures that could be taken, perhaps using the national insurance system, to provide them with greater certainty. The primary purpose of the Bill is to ensure greater financial understanding among the general population. They need to know where to turn at the right time. I have confidence that the single financial guidance body will achieve just that.

I close with a suggestion that is probably best directed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It has some relevance to the honest proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on mid-life reviews. Employees, as they work through their working lives, obviously have an employer. Employers are very well aware—possibly more than anybody else—of when an employee is approaching retirement. I am sure that most responsible employers will be keen to help. I recommend that the Secretary of State discuss amendments to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 to allow employers to pay for advice, outside of any benefit-in-kind tax charge, so that advice can be provided to employees and paid for tax-free. That would extend a benefit-in-kind exemption similar to what we see when advice relating to settlement agreements, or payment for CV writing and recruitment advice upon redundancy, is duly paid for by an employer tax-free.

In my view, the Bill is fit for purpose and I very much support it.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I wish to speak to amendments (b), (c) and (d) to new clause 9, which stand in my name. As the House might know, they arise from the work that the Work and Pensions Committee did on miners’ pensions. For most people, decisions about moving pension capital are made towards the end of their lives, but miners had to decide where they should safely put their pension savings as a result of the change in the ownership of their industry.

Given the warning from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) that we may not get on to the second set of amendments, I should mention that I have some amendments in that group to raise with the pensions Minister. Perhaps I may address two points to the Economic Secretary, but first I thank both Ministers for the way they have engaged with the Work and Pensions Committee for our report and in our meetings. We are immensely grateful to them. On some issues, I have joined my Front-Bench spokesmen because we have been pushing the same measures and interests.

I wish to raise two points that I hope the Economic Secretary will say will be added to the Bill. First, not only should cold calling become unlawful, but any information that arises from it should not be used for commercial purposes—that is, in respect of pension savings. Secondly, would it not be sensible to use the opportunity presented by this Bill to add the Financial Conduct Authority to the list of bodies in the Government’s policing arm to counter activities that unlawfully undermine people’s pension savings by trying to persuade them to move their assets in one way or another?

In the interests of getting on to the second set of amendments, I conclude my comments.

Draft Enhanced Partnership Plans And Schemes (Objections) Regulations 2018

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 General Committees

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am trying to organise a new bus service in my constituency. One of the main providers, Stagecoach, a national company, has decided to reconfigure some services along the A257, which runs between Sandwich and Canterbury, leaving a lot of smaller villages entirely off its service. The benefit for Stagecoach, and for people who live on that route, is that the service will now run every 20 minutes, but the village of Staple, for example, now has no service whatsoever.

I am trying to work with a community transport provider to put on a bus that will meander through some of the villages of South Thanet. Looking at section 22 of the Transport Act 1985, I believe the type of bus I am looking at would qualify, so it would not be a relevant exclusion under the statutory instrument we are considering today. We are seeing some services across the country being taken away, obviously through lack of use, and some local transport authorities are unable to provide the support they once used to provide, and for good reason. I just want a little reassurance that such community buses, which may have a view to making some profit, because things have to be replaced over time, will not be disadvantaged as a result of this.

In the route that I am considering, I have the full support of Stagecoach, which is the provider that has decided to take the service away, but I envisage that in some areas the clear recognition of what a community bus is might not be quite what is set out in the legislation. I would not want such a bus to be crowded out by a bigger provider that wants to keep control of a route that serves a community that desperately needs it. Will the Minister assure me that, as this scheme progresses, I can work with the Department to ensure that it has the support it needs so that it fits the bill?

Community Bank Closures

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

We have had a debate of extreme unity, between parties, between regions and between countries. It is fair to say that every MP in the House is concerned about the rapid closure of the banking network. I particularly wish to salute the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth).

It feels like we are seeing a rapid change in high street banking, at a rate that I have never seen before. The reason for that is probably to do with us—the consumer. We have gone down the route that the banks have encouraged: taking the contactless route and using mobile and internet banking. We no longer use cheques for our transactions, because, first, we cannot find our cheque book, and secondly, we have to find an envelope and a stamp.

We have all fallen, probably rightly, for the seduction of the ease and speed of online banking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) said very clearly, the volume of cash transactions in society is now below 50%. Even though we have the advance of the cashless society—I am sure that is warmly welcomed by the Treasury, because it means that most transactions can be appropriately taxed—it will be a very long while, probably a number of decades yet, before cash is completely out of the system.

There are a number of cash businesses; every constituency has them. My fear is that, when banking facilities move further and further away from those businesses, the amount of cash that is held in their premises and the homes of their owners, and perhaps in their safes, will become bigger and bigger, and with that will come security risks. There are security risks for the staff who are responsible for taking that cash to a bank that is increasing in size and further away.

[Ruth Smeeth]

One issue that has been raised with me by my constituents is to do with community groups that fundraise and hold big one-day festivals. They generate cash on that day, but, unlike businesses, which may be able to mitigate some of the problems, they may have volunteers who never have done anything like it before. That is a huge issue. Unfortunately, the post office will take cash deposits of only £2,000, which makes it even harder for them.

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Lady makes the perfect point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said very clearly that, when charities hold grand county fairs, there may be temporary traders who do not have contactless facilities and will not at any time that I can foresee, which makes it a very cash-based business. There are also clubs and societies that rely on cash and cheques for the small transactions among themselves.

I recall, not that long ago—I do not want to single out NatWest for any particular criticism—an advert that said, “We are open all the time. We are keeping our branches.” It was criticising its competitors, saying, “Ah, look, our competitor banks have made your bank into a new trendy wine bar.” I am afraid that we are seeing far too many of those across the country. I recall very clearly that my first bank account was at Lloyds 33 years ago. That branch, which had been there for 50 years or more, is now a quite nice Cypriot restaurant. That highlights the point that the network is disappearing in my constituency in particular. Broadstairs has lost NatWest and Lloyds in this last year alone.

The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned her petitions. I also generated a petition, and the regional director for NatWest very kindly came to my offices and I delivered it to him. I received the warm words, “We’re consulting.” But of course, the outcome was probably determined some time before the petition was even thought about. Sandwich, one of the best preserved medieval towns in the country, has lost HSBC, Lloyds and NatWest in the last 18 months alone. Broadstairs and Sandwich are both now left only with Nationwide, which I salute for staying true to its roots in service to the community and maintaining its branch network.

We have seen the banks retreat from the smaller communities into the major conurbations and shopping centres. I do not know the experience of other hon. Members, but whenever I pay in a cheque—my heart sinks when I receive a cheque in the post, because it means I have to wander somewhere to do something with it—the queues seem as long as they ever were.

Much has been said about the post office network, which is fantastic, but it is not always available and the queues are horrendous. The post office has closed in the small village of Ash in South Thanet—I say village, but it is getting towards town size, with a population of 3,500. We hope that the post office will be resurrected in a new branch or shop, but there is currently absolutely nothing available for the people of Ash, who are five miles from Sandwich, 16 miles from Canterbury and eight miles from Ramsgate.

Why do we not all use mobile apps and the internet? Well, that is all very well, but I do not want the elderly to be forced into accepting that type of banking, and people who have difficulties but are managing independent living need help with those kinds of facilities. My father is in his 80s, and is fit and well, but I do not want him to use mobile banking under any circumstances, because it is not uncommon for him to say to me, “Oh, I’ve had an email from Santander and I don’t even bank with Santander.” That is exactly the point. Many of us here, particularly those who are younger than me, are very internet-savvy and would recognise a scam banking email, but many of the elderly would not recognise it and might respond, giving up their internet banking details.

There are clarion calls across the House, mainly—dare I say?—from the Opposition, that it is up to the Government to do something. We often hear Members saying that the Government should do this or the Government should do that. In fact, we see it on the Order Paper on an almost daily basis. I do not think that this is a matter for the Government, although they can help to inform the debate. This afternoon, Members from all parties are saying loudly and clearly to the banks, “Stop what you’re doing and start thinking again about the communities you serve.”

Much has been said about the opportunity for joint banking facilities. That would be a very sensible route to take. I appreciate that a premises costs a lot of money, as it has to be heated and there are business rates, staff and security to pay. But surely three, four or five of the major banks could come together in some kind of grand banking hall, sharing facilities so that counter service is available. The call today is, “Banks, please do something.” They could also extend the availability of their mobile, caravan-type, irregular banking facilities that can go to smaller communities; I cannot see why that option should not be available.

We are all responsible for this situation. I am still a bit of a cash person. I even go into the bank and sign a cheque for cash. It was not many years ago that the cashier said, “Why don’t you use the cash point?” Of course, I do use cash points, but if I am passing the bank I often cash a cheque. I said, “Don’t put yourself out of a job. If more and more of us do that, you’re sounding the death knell of this branch.”

We see these changes here in the cafés in this House. I am always quite amazed that some of the younger people who work here will use a contactless card for their sandwich and a cup of coffee costing £1.90. I am not like that, but I can see that my own level of card use is increasing as the years go by. At the moment, I will use a card over the level of £20, but I am increasingly tempted to go for the contactless card under that £20 limit.

I recommend that Members encourage our constituents to get into the banks that still exist and use their counter facilities, because then the banks will not be able to say, “We’re closing because we’re not getting used enough.” The cross-party clarion call from this Chamber today has to be: “Banks, please stop. Let’s think again. Let’s work together. We want more joint facilities and more mobile caravan-type banking facilities going to our communities.” We can all do our bit by getting into the banks and using them.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad to have caught your eye.

Much of this issue has an international dimension. We have done more than any previous Government on the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, creating capital gains tax for foreign ownership sales and ending non-dom status. We have opened up shared beneficial ownership information through the OECD and the base erosion and profit shifting initiative. We have introduced the diverted profits tax, so that when there is insufficient economic substance to transactions—particularly where intellectual property is held abroad—and undue payments are made to foreign jurisdictions, that can be stopped and taxed accordingly. We have stopped the shifting of debt interest to the UK to prevent artificial deductions in the UK.

However, there is one tax haven I am really rather proud of, and that is the one for the lower paid in this country. We have created a very low-tax environment for the very low paid. When we look at what Labour did between 1997 and 2010, we see there was a rather paltry increase in the personal allowance from just £4,045 to £6,475 over 13 years. In our seven years in government, we have increased that to £11,500. That is a serious tax cut for every low-paid person.

We are doing something similar with companies, and that, to me, is the key to this. I would like to encourage more companies back to the UK so that they can pay their fair share of tax, and that is being done. In 2010, the corporation tax take was £35 billion, but it is now up to £53 billion. Of course, the wealthy in the UK—the top 1%—pay 28% of all income tax, which is higher than at any time.

In this debate, we must not lose an understanding of what foreign jurisdictions and so-called tax havens are there for. They are actually essential in the mix of international trade. For instance, it is not uncommon for a French investing company to choose the Caymans or the British Virgin Islands as the place of contract for a deal to invest in, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Though I have great respect for the legal system of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the legal system and common law of the UK are what create legal certainty. These things are not always about saving tax or avoiding tax; they are about trying to make transactions in the right place.

So let us bear down on egregious tax planning. Let us continue the promotion of data sharing with our international partners. Let us make sure that global profits are taxed in the right place. And let us use our influence on our overseas territories. The Conservative party is doing those things more than the Labour party did in 13 years in government.

Finance Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

Yes, I did have the huge pleasure of serving on the Finance Bill Committee and it was fascinating. The Finance Bill is undoubtedly a whopper; it is huge. There is a good case—I am sure the Minister will come to this in his remarks—for saying that we need to think more actively about ways to make measures shorter and more easily digestible for hon. Members. I say that without detracting from the substance of what the Government are doing, which I completely support.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The UK tax code is now 22,000 pages long and involves 10 million words. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to lessen that level of complexity if we are to be globally competitive in the future?

[Bim Afolami]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Being in government is a complicated matter, and Rome was not built in a day. This Bill can continue the work that Treasury Ministers have already begun on how we address the difficulty involved in making things fairer and simpler, while also making sure that we have the right incentives for businesses to come to our country, and grappling with that in the context of trying to make sure that the tax code is simpler.

Finance Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate having the opportunity to speak in this second part of our debate on the Finance Bill.

The matter in hand now has been discussed a number of times over the past few months, specifically around business investment relief. Some aspects of it were discussed while tackling the Ways and Means resolutions and on Second Reading. We are still not clear what impact this will have; the Government have still not told us. An overview of tax legislation was produced at the tail end of last year, when the Bill was first in draft form. It said there was likely to be a negligible impact on the public finances, but that does not explain what is actually going to happen. It also says that between 200 and 400 individuals a year benefit from business investment relief, but again that does not really explain the impact of this relief.

We do know, however, that everybody who benefits from the relief is a non-dom. The Government claim that they are changing the way non-doms are considered and are making it less easy for them to get away with dodging taxes, but this serves to increase the ability of non-doms to get away with not paying tax. The Government suggest this is about increasing investment, but they have not been able to produce any evidence of how much investment has been created as a result of business investment relief.

I am concerned about the amount of time and energy that the House is spending on this matter. It is spending a significant amount of time: we put this measure in place, presumably, at some point in the past few years, yet only 200 to 400 individuals have taken it up. Despite the fact that the numbers are so small, however, we are again debating the matter; this is the third time that we have done so this year, when there are many very important other items on the agenda.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The amount of investment that has come to the UK from non-doms is £1.6 billion since 2012. I hope that is of some assistance to the hon. Lady.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Is that through business investment relief or from non-doms in general? We asked for those figures before, at the last stage of this discussion, and they were not forthcoming from the Front Bench. It would be nice to have those figures in writing from the ministerial team.

The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) talked about why we should trust the Tories and what he would tell his constituents about that. He included things such as the living wage and increasing employment, both of which have happened, but the living wage is not a living wage, because people cannot actually live on the current living wage. If he made that proposition to his constituents, what he would actually have to say is that their wages have not gone up in a decade, that household debt is spiralling and that their savings are going down. If the Tories are doing such a good job, why are people poorer as a result?

One of our concerns is that we are facing a hard Brexit that will significantly damage the economy, but measures such as this one, which is projected to bring in only a small amount of investment from non-doms, will not undo the damage created by a hard Brexit; this will not undo the 5% reduction in GDP that Scotland is set to experience as a result of Brexit.

Finance Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, that is why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury set out a number of important areas in the Bill that deal with those issues.

I want to pick up on an issue that, interestingly, has been referred to by a number of colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) touched on the question of public sector productivity, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who speaks for the SNP, also alluded to productivity. I think the hon. Lady got it a little wrong, however, when she talked about improving productivity by giving people higher pay. It is actually the other way round. We all want our constituents to get a pay rise—I think that that unites everyone in the House—but the only sustainable way to drive up pay in the public and private sectors is to improve productivity in both sectors. I shall set out a few areas in which we could do that.

First, however, I want to make a slightly humorous point to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not want to see an increase in the productivity of the parliamentary draftsmen in Her Majesty’s Treasury. Producing Finance Bills as thick as this one is perhaps not what we ought to be doing. I understand the complexity of these matters—I declare an interest as a non-practising chartered accountant—but I know from talking to colleagues in the business that they do not enormously welcome Finance Bills this thick. Much as this might upset them, I have to say that creating jobs for tax accountants is also perhaps not something that we ought to be doing. Slimmer Finance Bills with simpler, less complex legislation introducing lower tax rates from which we collect more revenue are the way to go. If we were to do that, we would be doing everyone a service, and those in the tax business could perhaps find more productive things to do. This gentle chiding is perhaps directed less towards my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury than towards officials in his Department.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I shall give way to a fellow chartered accountant.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I declare an interest: I am a practising chartered accountant, when I have the time. My right hon. Friend said that lower rates can produce more revenue. Is that not exactly what has happened since 2010 with our reduction in corporation tax rates, which is paying the dividend of a greater return for the Treasury?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and he is exactly right. This was one area in which the debate about corporation tax rates during the general election campaign became rather confused. The Opposition kept saying that we were cutting corporation tax, and making it sound as though we were therefore going to collect less revenue. What we were doing, of course, was to reduce corporation tax rates. The purpose of doing so was to collect more corporation tax revenue, both to attract more businesses to locate in the United Kingdom and to enable the businesses that are already here to be more successful. That is an admirable aspiration but it is, as my hon. Friend said, what has happened in practice.

One of my concerns about the Labour party’s plans is that an increase in corporation tax rates would lead to the collection of less corporation tax revenue; and we would have less money, rather than more, to spend on our public services and our hard-working public sector workers. [Interruption.] I see Opposition Members, including those on the Front Bench, shaking their heads, but since we cut corporation tax rates, we have collected more corporation tax—

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I know you have just taken the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am afraid that we have not have heard too much good news this afternoon, so I want to bring that good news to Members.

We have closed the tax gap. We are raising more tax than ever before by closing down some of the more ambitious and egregious tax systems that Labour did nothing about over the 13 years that it was in power. We have got unemployment down to the lowest level since 1975. We are doing more to close the tax gap—it is very difficult to assess what a tax gap is; by its very nature, it is very difficult to put one’s finger on—than ever before. Thirty million people are saving £1,000 in tax due to the massive increase in personal allowances from £6,500 a year in 2010 to £11,500 a year today. That is a real benefit to the lowest paid across this country. We can add to that increases in the living wage, with another £1,400 going to everybody in this country. For pensioners, we have raised the level of state pension, again adding more for those who need it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) made a very clear point about how the wealthiest in this country are now paying a higher amount of tax than ever before because we are doing what we can to close down the inefficiencies in our tax system. It is strange that Labour Members have always talked big about the wealthy not paying their share, but the Conservatives are actually making them do so. We have reduced the inequality in pay grades between the sexes. Apparently, for people in their 20s that pay inequality is now down to zero. All that is being achieved by this Government.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

If everything is going so swimmingly for this Government and they have achieved so much, why on earth should they not lift the 1% pay cap for all public sector workers?

[Craig Mackinlay]

We will be having a debate about that tomorrow, I believe. The fact is that we had a £150 billion per year deficit when we came into power with our then Lib Dem partners in 2010, and we have got that down to just a little over £50 billion a year. A GDP borrowing requirement of 10% in 2010 is now down to 3%. I certainly hope that as we grow this economy we will be able to look at public sector pay in a more reasonable and appropriate way in future, but that is a debate for tomorrow and for years ahead.

I was very taken by the maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) and especially by his story about the previous Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), putting a seal on that barrel of cask whisky. Let us hope that he put a seal on it meaning that it may be opened tax free, for the benefit of all, in due course.

The statistics on what we have achieved speak for themselves. The one that bears the most fruit is that on the lowering of corporation tax. We generally tax things that are bad. We put high rates of tax on things such as cigarettes or alcohol because we want to stop their use to some extent because of their perilous health effects—particularly those of cigarettes. Why would we want to follow Labour’s proposal to raise the tax on corporates? It seems to me that unless we want to supress profit and jobs and to do entirely the opposite of what we actually want to achieve, raising tax on corporates is the worst thing we can do—and it has been shown to be the worst thing. Members should not take my word for it. The Institute for Fiscal Studies took the Labour party’s spending plan to pieces before the election.

That is the good news. I am not always in favour of Finance Bills, and I am particularly not always in favour of one of this size. As I have said before, I am a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser, and I still work as that from time to time. I am afraid that it does no good for UK competitiveness that we now have one of the most complex tax systems in the world. It now runs to 22,000 pages and 10 million words. Compare that with the entire tax system of Hong Kong, which runs to 350 pages in its entirety. In the early days of my training, in the late ’80s, the tax law rewrite was being discussed. We then had the Office of Tax Simplification, run for a time by John Whiting CBE, a man I know well and a fellow member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. It is time to do what we can to slim down legislation and make it fit for purpose.

Much of what we have been doing of late is going in the right direction. Let me canter through various parts of the tax system and give my comments thereon. On inheritance tax, the proposals to give an increasing exemption for the family home must be the right way forward. For many people, the reason their property has become of such high value is often not to do with their circumstances. It might have been caused by quantitative easing resulting from the 2008 failure and the inflation of prices. Of course, the north-south divide and the sheer desirability of London and the south-east, as well as restrictions on planning, have caused a huge asset bubble.

One area that has much to say for itself and has been discussed a lot this afternoon is the extension of inheritance tax to non-domiciles. The situation has been daft for a long time as non-doms have benefited from tax exemptions across vast parts of our tax code, but we should strike a note of caution this afternoon. Clause 33, expanded in schedule 10, deals with non-doms who use a company or trust to hold UK residential property. There is perhaps a flaw in the Bill as drafted that needs clearing up, and that could be done in Committee.

The situation as it is designed deals with non-doms who own a residential property through a foreign company. Let us say that that non-dom is a New Zealander, who owns a property portfolio through a New Zealand company. If that were the case, he could now be subject to inheritance tax on that UK property.

That in itself is not an issue, but my worry is that if an alternative non-dom had provided the financing to the non-resident company for that UK property purchase—this could involve a vehicle that had never had anything to do with the UK—there is potential under the Bill as drafted for that loan to be caught under UK inheritance tax rules. I am not entirely sure that that was the intention. For example, a Swiss investment company owner—or even a foreign discretionary trust—providing finance for a non-dom company to buy UK residential property could find itself within the inheritance tax net even though it had never set foot in the UK. A foreign discretionary trust could even find itself facing 10-year principal charges. Again, I am not sure that that was the intention. We have done much—starting some years back with the annual tax on enveloped dwellings and the extension to stamp duty for properties purchased that way—to try to unwind corporate structures that own property in the UK. No other party has tried to make the playing field level for UK citizens in this country who are doing the right thing, but we are now rightly extending those measures to include non-doms.

I know that we have had the election, and circumstances have brought us to where we are today. There are no surprises in the Bill, and it is not retrospective, but I believe that we should avoid the practice of proposals coming into force, many of them on 1 April this year, before the legislation has been agreed in this House. For instance, if the proposals on non-doms owning a residential property through a foreign company become law, a situation could arise in which a person who had died sometime after 1 April was subject to a law that had not yet been enacted because it had not received Royal Assent. We should avoid situations such as that.

My concern about some parts of the inheritance tax extension to non-doms—I am not saying that it is not right at all—is that we need to get the balance right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) highlighted the fact that there is a balance to be struck between making Britain an appealing place for business and deterring non-doms from coming here at all. Many of those who come will be spending out on improvements and jobs as well as contributing to the VAT take. There is a balance to be struck and, unlike Labour, we know where that balance is. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) put it rather well when he said that we would rather see more people becoming wealthy than see the poor suffering as long as the rich did too.

Pensions have gone through what can rightly be called a revolution over the past few years, starting with the pension freedoms that came into play in 2015. The way in which we took our pensions was very restrictive. We accumulated our funds, but we had no choice but to put them into annuities that could, depending on the interest rate at the time, have provided a rather poor outcome. It is therefore absolutely right that we now have pension freedoms. We can do what we like with the pot that we have accumulated. We can have draw-down income, and we can use it far more flexibly.

It is recognised that massive amounts of tax relief are available in the area of pensions. There is nothing wrong with the current annual allowance of £40,000; that is the right level. However, I do have some problem with the lifetime allowance of £1 million, because I do not think a senior nurse aged 45 to 50 in the NHS pension scheme was ever intended to be knocking on the door of lifetime allowances. If somebody with their own self-invested personal pension or defined contribution scheme has a good fund manager and has done well during their working life, is it fair for them to be penalised by comparison with somebody who has not had such a good fund manager and whose returns have not been quite so good? I am not in favour of the lifetime allowance, but I am certainly in favour of the annual allowance.

Auto-enrolment has been one of the great successes, because I do not think that anybody is saving enough towards their pension.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I am reflecting on what my hon. Friend said about allowances. Is he arguing for allowances to be automatically uprated to take account of inflation?

[Craig Mackinlay]

There is an uprating coming into place to allow the floor to increase from £1 million in due course. There used not to be a lifetime allowance, but it started at £1.8 million some years ago and has come down to £1 million.

The flexibility of SIPPs and the success of auto-enrolment are essential if we are to rebalance our savings rates, which have been fairly poor by comparison with those of other G20 countries. I am looking forward to seeing how lifetime ISAs will plug any holes in the pension market. We have had a lot of change, and even though much of it has been to the good, we are in danger of losing stability. People become rather unsure about what will happen in the pension market and whether the changes will affect them. The last thing we want to do is to deter people from saving for their pensions.

On IR35, much has changed in the last year, particularly in terms of personal service companies that provide services to public sector bodies. It has long been known that personal service companies and the IR35 rules have been abused—that was recognised in the House of Lords’ report—and so I welcomed the change that came in from April this year. It is not right that personal service companies, which are, by any other measure, a disguised form of employment, are not being taxed in the right way. I fully support what is happening, but I do think that we need greater clarity over employment status.

The rather complex process of recognition of whether a person is properly self-employed or properly employed is quite confusing for a small employer. That is still somewhat vague, and there is some gold-plating in the public sector because of worry about people’s status. I regularly see people who work through a proper personal service company and who are clearly self-employed, not in an employment situation. Out of fear, the public sector is tending to move everybody who works in such a way to an IR35 status, which adds to costs in the sector. It is a very difficult balance.

Termination payments have been discussed this afternoon. My worry about them is that the £30,000 level has been in place since the early 1990s. If it were more realistically upgraded in accordance with inflation to today’s values, it would be in the region of £70,000. Other changes are likely to bring more termination payments—most likely correctly—into tax.

I turn to the dividend tax changes. Dividend tax has been subject to huge change over the last few years. Just two years ago, it was announced that the first £5,000 would be completely free of tax, after which an individual enters the regime of 7.5% while they are within the basic rate band. I am concerned that we have moved so quickly to cut the allowance from £5,000 to £2,000. In doing so, we have not provided a stable playing field for people to get used to. I can certainly understand, from the Treasury’s point of view, that this has been an area of tax loss. It has long been known that owner-managers probably give themselves the lowest level of salary, but then pay themselves through a dividend route. People recognise that the situation has perhaps been too good for too long and that things now have to change, but I am concerned that it did not take very long for the allowance to be reduced from £5,000 to £2,000.

I realise that much of the Finance Bill—the provisions amount to some 300 pages— concerns the corporation tax loss regime and the restriction of interest. I will canter through this as fast as I possibly can. Brought-forward losses may now be used very flexibly, which is very good for the smaller company. The one complexity that the Bill will bring in is that there will be two lots of losses: old losses, which have to be used in the old way; and new losses, arising after 1 April 2017, which will be used in the new way. For the smaller company, that will add a level of complexity that we perhaps do not need. I therefore seek from the Treasury Bench some change, if possible, to allow smaller companies some degree of exemption.

All in all, we are in a very good place with our tax system. There could be more simplification, and I have previously raised with Treasury Ministers my concerns about various aspects of the system. I hope that we can look again at one concern that turns up regularly in my inbox, which is the restriction on landlord’s interest. That has been ill thought out and could be looked at again.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and I often discuss enterprise investment schemes and seed EISs. The sad fact is that the number of seed EISs, which should be a very flexible way of getting small amounts of capital into small start-ups, have not really been used as widely as they should have been. From my perspective of having tried to put them in place professionally, it is very unlikely that a smaller business can afford even the modest professional fees necessary for raising such a small amount of capital. Some flexibility is needed if we are to encourage seed EISs.

We need to continue to debate tax policy. Much was said by my hon. Friend about how we have a tax system that was designed with the 19th and 20th centuries in mind—trying to tax things or recognisable services—but the new digital economy means that the playing field is rather different. We need to think rather carefully, perhaps on a cross-party basis, about how we can tax the digital economy properly. We also need to discuss what our tax policy is trying to achieve. For too long, whenever we have tried to make a small change, it has either been howled down or the media have got involved, and I am afraid that we have become somewhat fearful of change. It is now time for cross-party working on what we are trying to achieve in raising the appropriate amounts of tax in the modern age.

Much has been said about productivity, but it is very difficult to measure—I am sorry to be so technical—especially in services, which are rather more prevalent in our economy than in those of other OECD countries. I know, however, that I would rather have lower levels of productivity and higher levels of employment than the massively high youth unemployment seen in other countries in the EU, which—by whatever measure—have managed to have higher productivity among those actually in work. I put that down to the more laissez-faire system under which we operate in the UK, where the employment rules are slightly more liberal. In France and Germany, employers dare not get it wrong, because they have very little flexibility in getting it right when they need to shed staff.

I will leave my thoughts on the tax system there, and I look forward to supporting the Second Reading this evening.