Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Professional standards—

‘After section 65 of FSMA 2000 insert—

“65A Professional Standards

(1) The regulator will raise standards of professionalism in financial services by mandating a licensing regime based on training and competence. This must—

(a) apply to all approved persons exercising controlled functions, regardless of financial sector;

(b) specify minimum thresholds of competence including integrity, professional qualifications, continuous professional development and adherence to a recognised code of conduct and revised Banking Standards Rules;

(c) make provisions in connection with—

(i) the granting of a licence;

(ii) the refusal of a licence;

(iii) the withdrawal of a licence; and

(iv) the revalidation of a licensed person of a prescribed description whenever the appropriate regulator sees fit, either as a condition of the person continuing to hold a licence or of the person’s licence being restored;

(d) be evidenced by individuals holding an annual validation of competence;

(e) include specific provision for a Senior Persons Regime in relation to activities involving the exercise of a significant influence over a controlled function under section 59 of the Act.

(2) In section 59, remove “authorised” and insert “licensed” throughout the section.”.’.

New clause 4—Duty of Care—

‘At all times when carrying out core activities a ring-fenced body shall—

(a) be subject to a fiduciary duty towards its customers in the operation of core services; and

(b) be subject to a duty of care towards it customers across the financial services sector.’.

New clause 5—Remuneration reform—

‘Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, in consultation with the appropriate regulation, lay before Parliament proposals on reform of remuneration at UK financial institutions which shall include incentives to take account of the performance and stability of a UK financial institution over a five- to 10-year period.’.

New clause 7—Protection for whistleblowers—

‘(1) After section 43B(f) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 there is inserted—

“(g) that a breach of regulated activities under FSMA 2000 or the Financial Services Act 2012 has been committed, is being committed, or is likely to be committed.”.

(2) After section 43B(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 there is inserted—

“The chairman of the board of directors of any relevant UK financial institution will be informed of any protected disclosure made by a worker which qualifies under the terms of Part IVA of this Act.”.’.

New clause 11—Reckless misconduct in the management of a bank—

‘(1) Within the three months of Royal Assent of this Act the Government shall publish proposals for the creation of a new criminal offence of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank.

(2) The new offence in subsection (2) should cover those approved persons who are licensed under a Senior Persons Regime.

(3) The Government shall bring forward further proposals within three months of Royal Assent of this Act for the civil recovery of monies obtained by individuals who have been found guilty of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank.’.

New clause 13—Financial Services Crime Unit—

‘(1) The Treasury shall conduct a review into the creation of a Financial Services Crime Unit and consult on its proposals for the Financial Services Crime Unit’s powers and responsibilities.

(2) The Treasury shall lay its proposals before both Houses of Parliament no later than six months after this Act comes into force.’.

[Stephen Barclay]

In speaking to new clause 2, which I will not press to a vote, I wish to follow the line of argument pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) on new clause 9. He drew attention to the tension created by building up capital while also lending more and used the analogy of driving with one foot on the accelerator and the other on the brake. If I may, I will take a step outside the car. With new clause 2, I wish to draw the House’s attention to a similar, I am sure unintended tension. The Government are taking a positive step forward, because in paragraphs 2.13 and 2.14 of their response to the parliamentary commission’s report, they make the welcome announcement that they accept the premise of reversing the burden of proof. In doing so, however, they will adopt a measure suggested in paragraphs 1170 and 1171 of the commission’s report that will create a potential handicap. A new condition will be attached to using that burden of proof, whereby the regulator must have concluded a successful enforcement action against the firm prior to doing so.

I do not think there can be any doubt about the merits of reversing the burden of proof. It is clear that if the regulator is required to sift through reams of e-mails looking for evidence to incriminate a senior banker, it will be a time-consuming and costly exercise. It is also highly likely that it will fail, because senior executives are not so stupid as to write boastful and wilful e-mails such as we saw from some of the LIBOR traders, who bragged of having their bottles of Bolly. Most senior executives are wise to the risks of e-mails and would not fall into such a trap. It is proportionate and reasonable to argue that senior executives who say that their hands-on leadership is sufficient to justify very high individual bonuses should also, on the other side of the coin, be able to demonstrate that they have personally acted reasonably.

The Government’s announcement that they will reverse the burden of proof is extremely welcome. However, the acceptance of paragraph 1171 of the Commission’s report could lead to a real impediment. If we open the door to personal enforcement, why would a chief executive wish to settle on behalf of their firm? We are trying to make it easier for the regulator to focus in a time-efficient and cost-effective manner on the individuals who should be held responsible, but that will be impeded by the additional requirement for enforcement to be concluded against the firm. The senior leadership whom we want to target will be incentivised to drag out proceedings and impede any settlement with the firm. I do not believe that is the Government’s intention, but I wished to draw the Minister’s attention to it so that the issue could be discussed in more detail and tackled in the other place.

I do not share the confidence of some colleagues who have spoken about the ability of criminal sanctions to operate effectively. They are a welcome tool to have, and many of our constituents would like the golden handcuffs to be replaced with the prison variety. Indeed, the images on US television of white-collar arrests and convictions have a powerful deterrent effect. My concern, however, is that if we look at the individual fines and enforcement to date, we see that the regulator has struggled to reach the evidential level required to prosecute individuals successfully. Now we are suggesting that it will have to meet a higher standard of proof to secure criminal convictions. It is a bit like asking a hurdler who has just failed at one level to jump over a much higher hurdle.

The reversal of the burden of proof is one aspect of what we need, and the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions is another, because it brings with it the power of the headline. The question is, will we fall into the trap that we so often fall into in this House of passing legislation that sounds tough but proves difficult to use in practice? My fear is that the standard of proof required of the regulator to deliver a criminal prosecution will make it a tool that is rarely used.

We therefore need to consider how we can target individuals, not firms, because that will drive the culture of firms. Currently, where there is wrongdoing, a firm will settle quickly and get a 30% discount. The more junior staff—the heads of the divisions responsible—are quickly exited, and the senior staff wilfully claim blindness, because the most controversial briefings are usually done orally. Reversing the burden of proof will address part of the ill, but through the new clause I wish to draw attention to the limitations of fines on firms, which at the end of the day penalise shareholders and pension funds. Our constituents pay twice—first for the bail-out, and then through the impact on their shareholding.

Margaret Thatcher Day Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it would be helpful to the Government Whips if they were to read “Erskine May” to see how the process works.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but it might have been helpful if they had struggled a little longer to get through the Lobby.

[Mr Bone]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill would amend the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 so that the last Monday in August is known as Margaret Thatcher day. Baroness Thatcher was without doubt one of the greatest Prime Ministers in living memory—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Would Members please be quiet, because I am trying to hear Mr Bone. It would be helpful if those leaving the Chamber would do so quietly.

[Mr Bone]

Mrs Thatcher was a great stateswoman, a true patriot, and an inspiration to the masses. She not only did our country a great service but gave Britain back its pride and returned it to prosperity after some of the darkest economic days in recent decades. She gave us a legacy to be proud of. It is rare to find—

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

This had better be a serious point of order, Mr Docherty, because we are interrupting the hon. Gentleman’s speech for the third time. Are you serious or are you not?

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend can go first.

Finance Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive account of new clause 7 and for responding to our queries. As he has said, the Government want to introduce a number of new clauses and amendments to the Bill. Could you clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether we are dealing with just new clause 7 at this stage, or are we taking any other amendments?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Just new clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Is it appropriate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I now speak to amendments 52 and 53, tabled in my name?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 7 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.



Clause 175

Election to be treated as domiciled in the United Kingdom

[Mr Gauke]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 105, leave out lines 4 to 13 and insert—

‘(3) Condition A is that, at any time on or after 6 April 2013 and during the period of 7 years ending with the date on which the election is made, the person had a spouse or civil partner who was domiciled in the United Kingdom.

(4) Condition B is that a person (“the deceased”) dies and, at any time on or after 6 April 2013 and within the period of 7 years ending with the date of death, the deceased was—

(a) domiciled in the United Kingdom, and

(b) the spouse or civil partner of the person who would, by virtue of the election, be treated as domiciled in the United Kingdom.’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 7 and 35 to 51.

[Mr Gauke]

These Government amendments make important changes to the UK’s inheritance tax rules.

Amendments 1 to 7 will bring in greater flexibility and provide more individuals with the option to elect to be treated as UK domiciled for the purposes of inheritance tax. They demonstrate the Government’s willingness to listen to the views of external interested parties and act where there is a principled case for change.

Amendments 35 to 51 are being made as a result of comments by interested parties. They clarify the technical interpretation of the legislation and change the commencement provisions with respect to certain liabilities.

Let me turn first to amendments 1 to 7 to clause 175. The clause reforms the inheritance tax treatment of transfers between UK-domiciled individuals and their non-UK-domiciled spouses or civil partners. The changes allow individuals who are not domiciled in the United Kingdom but who have a UK-domiciled spouse or civil partner to elect to be treated as domiciled in the UK for the purposes of inheritance tax.

The amendments are being made following comments from two key interested parties—the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the London Society of Chartered Accountants—about how the Finance Bill as drafted amends the inheritance tax treatment of spouses and civil partners not domiciled in the UK. Their further representations since the publication of the Bill in March have helped us understand the concerns raised in more detail. Considering the points raised has taken time, but the amendments will resolve these issues.

The clause as drafted stipulates that a person must be non-UK-domiciled and married at the time they make an election. Consequently, a person who has recently become UK domiciled would not be able to make a retrospective election that would cover a period when he or she had been non-domiciled. Effectively, they are trapped if they are not aware of the possible IHT consequences at the point just before they become UK domiciled—for example, if they decide to remain in the UK indefinitely after having children here. This might be especially harsh in situations where the original UK-domiciled spouse dies suddenly having made potentially exempt transfers to the surviving spouse.

Similarly, the Bill as drafted requires a person to remain married to, or in a civil partnership with, the UK-domiciled spouse or civil partner throughout the “relevant period” preceding the election, which can be up to seven years. Therefore, in circumstances where the marriage or civil partnership has been dissolved and the person is a non-domiciled individual, they are prevented from making an election retrospectively and hence prevented from gaining access to spousal relief for the period when they were married in return for their overseas assets being brought into IHT. That was not the intention of the policy.

Amendments 1 to 7 remove the condition that a person must be non-UK-domiciled at the time of making an election. They also remove the requirement that the person making the election is married or in a civil partnership with the UK-domiciled individual throughout the relevant period. The amended clause stipulates instead that they were married or in civil partnership at any time during the relevant period.

As a result of these amendments, individuals who are domiciled in the UK but who were previously domiciled elsewhere will be able to make a retrospective election. Similarly, the amendments will also enable individuals previously married or in a civil partnership to make a retrospective election following divorce or dissolution. This will ensure that changes in domicile or marriage status do not restrict the ability of individuals to elect to be within the UK inheritance tax system.

Amendment 1 simply removes a sub-paragraph that is no longer required as a consequence of amendments 2 to 6, while amendment 7 provides clarity that the provision for revoking an election applies only to the person who made the election and not to that person’s personal representatives.

Let me now turn to amendments 35 to 51 to schedule 34. Clause 174 and schedule 34 reform the inheritance tax treatment of outstanding liabilities. They introduce new conditions and restrictions on when a liability can be deducted from the value of an estate.

The current rules allow almost all outstanding liabilities at death to reduce the value of an estate, irrespective of how the borrowed moneys have been used, or whether the loan is repaid following the death. That creates opportunities for avoidance and can lead to decisions and arrangements being made purely for tax reasons. A range of contrived arrangements and avoidance schemes on the market seek to exploit the current rules. The number of those is expected to grow as other avoidance routes are closed off.

There is an inconsistency in how the current rules treat liabilities that are used to acquire assets that qualify for relief, but that are secured against different types of assets. That creates an advantageous tax position and distorts decision making by encouraging individuals to secure business loans against their personal property where there may be no need to do so. The Government believe that the tax system should neither encourage nor penalise the choice of one form of security over another.

Clause 174 and schedule 34 address those opportunities for avoidance and inconsistency in three ways. First, deductions will be disallowed where the loan has been used to acquire excluded property—that is, property which is excluded from the charge to inheritance tax. Secondly, where the loan has been used to acquire relievable property—that is, property which qualifies for a relief—the relief will be allowed against the net value of the property after deducting the loan. Thirdly, the loan will generally be allowable as a deduction only if it has been repaid from assets in the estate.

The Government are making those changes to improve the integrity and fairness of the inheritance tax system, close avoidance opportunities and remove the inconsistency in the treatment of loans.

Following the publication of the Finance Bill in March, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has received comments from representative bodies, practitioners and individuals that have highlighted sections of the legislation that could be clarified. Interested parties have also expressed concern that the new provisions will apply retrospectively where individuals have secured business loans on their non-business property for commercial reasons, rather than for avoidance purposes, before the changes were announced. Those individuals would face a higher IHT bill if they died before the debt was repaid.

Amendments 35 to 49 clarify the interpretation of the legislation to ensure that it works as intended, and address some of the technical issues identified in feedback. If a loan has been used to acquire excluded property, which later becomes chargeable to IHT, amendment 37 will allow the deduction for the liability. Conversely, if chargeable property subsequently becomes excluded property, the amendment will deny the deduction.

Where a loan has been used to acquire relievable property and that property is given away before death, amendments 41 and 42 will ensure that the liability is not deducted again against other types of property if it has already been taken into account. Amendment 45 will widen the meaning of “estate” to allow the liability to be repaid from property that is usually treated as being outside a person’s estate for IHT purposes, such as foreign property that is owned by an individual who is not domiciled in the UK. Where a loan has not been repaid and the deduction is disallowed, amendment 47 will make it clear that the liability will not reduce the amount that would be eligible for the inheritance tax exemption for transfers between spouses or civil partners.

The Government recognise that some lenders may require security in the form of personal assets and that individuals who have secured existing loans against their personal property to finance business investment may not be able to restructure the loan or unwind the arrangements. Amendments 50 and 51 will therefore amend the commencement date so that the new rules dealing with liabilities incurred to acquire relievable property will apply only to new loans taken out on or after 6 April 2013. That will mean that someone who took out a business loan in the past secured against their other assets will not be affected by the new provisions.

The commencement date for the other provisions in schedule 34 will remain unchanged as the date of Royal Assent. Those provisions will apply to other liabilities, irrespective of when they were incurred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are wandering away from the amendment, and I know the hon. Lady just wanted to make a point on the amendment.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My point relates specifically to the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Many businesses that manage to obtain funding are often required to provide their home as security. If this provision has a detrimental impact on small businesses and puts family homes in jeopardy, will the Government keep it under review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 9 to 16.

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 14 and schedule 2 provide a wide-ranging simplification of the four tax advantaged employee share schemes, following recommendations by the Office of Tax Simplification. The Government are introducing amendments 8 to 16 to provide further clarity on the rules that apply where company events involving “general offers” take place. When clause 14 was discussed in Committee, we highlighted some of the improvements that we are making to simplify the tax advantaged employee share schemes, and I shall provide hon. Members with some background on the specific provisions relating to these amendments.

Current legislation allows employees affected by certain company events, such as takeovers, to exchange their original scheme shares or options for shares or options in the acquiring company. The schedule also creates new rights for participants to realise scheme shares or exercise options without tax liability in the event of a cash takeover of their company.

Earlier this year, a tax tribunal hearing a particular case published a decision on what constitutes a “general offer” for the whole of the ordinary share capital of a company. Following this decision, and a number of requests from taxpayers and advisers, the Government consider it desirable to clarify the scope of what constitutes a “general offer” for the purposes of the provisions. The amendments clarify the position across all four tax advantaged employee share schemes, and confirm the rules as they have been consistently applied by HMRC. Our aim is to remove any uncertainty for advisers and taxpayers, consistent with the general simplification theme of the changes. The amendments, alongside the changes that already form part of the Bill, demonstrate the Government’s commitment to simplifying and clarifying the tax rules where possible.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

I beg to move amendment 17, page 205, line 7, after ‘(g)’, insert ‘or (4A)’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 18 to 29.

Amendment 52, page 213, line 2, at end insert—

‘(aa) the policy has an annual premium of £3,600 or less.’.

Amendment 53, page 213, line 2, at end insert—

‘(ab) the policy is subject to capital gains tax.’.

[Sajid Javid]

Amendments 17 to 29 make a number of technical changes to schedule 9 and clause 25 to ensure that the qualifying insurance policy regime works as intended. Let me set out some brief background to these changes. The qualifying policy regime was introduced in 1968 to preserve pre-existing tax treatment for traditional moderate value, long-term, regular premium savings policies that contain a significant element of life insurance.

No upper limit was set for the investment premiums that could be paid into a QP, which allowed individuals to obtain unlimited relief from higher rates of income tax. In the 2012 Budget, the Government announced a restriction to the tax relief available for QPs. Clause 25 and schedule 9 introduce an annual premium limit of £3,600 on qualifying life insurance policies. This restriction limits the amount of premiums payable into QPs for an individual to no more than £3,600 in any 12-month period, with effect from 6 April 2013.

This measure supports the Government’s objective of promoting fairness in the tax system by ensuring that tax reliefs for QPs are correctly targeted. Consultation since the Bill was introduced has continued and identified the need for Government amendments to clause 25 to deal with points of detail in 13 areas. None of these represents a change of policy; as I have said, they are technical adjustments to ensure that the rules operate effectively and as intended. The amendments have been discussed with industry representatives and have benefited from the comments received.

Let me briefly explain the amendments in slightly more detail. The purpose of the changes is to provide flexibility to deal with potential future exclusions from the non-assignment rule and potential future exclusions from the circumstances under which beneficiaries must make statements, to extend the period by which an individual must first make a statement and to clarify what information an insurer must provide and obtain from a policy beneficiary and what an insurer must provide to HMRC. In addition, a number of amendments make minor corrections or consequential changes to the more material changes that I have described.

If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak to amendments 52 and 53, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), at the end of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do not think that we need to worry about that. We should stick to the amendment.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had feared that the Exchequer Secretary would jump up and ask a supplementary question about the Opposition’s position on cutting VAT.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

There was an office block speculator called Harry Hyams. Those were the days when people could build office blocks and not pay rent on them, and they would appreciate two or three times in value every year. That happened against the background of a chronic housing crisis. We rightly protested against that and the incoming Labour Government rightly changed the law for—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are trying to deal with an amendment. Going down memory lane is all very well, Centre Point is very interesting and Mr Mann will always have a response, but I know that Members are desperate to get back to the amendment.

[Jack Dromey]

You are right, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We are here to stand up for the people we represent, and we all see the impact of the housing crisis in our constituencies. I see the impact in the shortage of homes being built in Erdington—56 certified by the National House-Building Council in 2012—and the building worker, one of 79,000, who lost his job, a big man who burst into tears on his front doorstep in Marsh lane and said, “I’ve lost my job three times; I am desperate to provide for my family. I simply can’t cope any longer.” I also see the impact on the homeless families who come to my surgery—on one occasion, they had just been evicted—desperate for a decent home, and the young people in the Orchard project run by the YMCA in my constituency, where numbers of young homeless people double every year.

Finance Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans]

When Conservative Members were talking about the Laffer curve, Ronald Reagan came to mind. For some reason, when the hon. Gentleman stood up, Ronald Reagan came to mind again, as I recalled him saying to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election campaign, “There you go again.” The person sitting tonight at their kitchen table, worrying about paying the rent, the mortgage, the gas bill or the electric bill, and watching this debate—although given the time they will probably be watching “Pointless”—[Interruption.] I walked into that one. They might be watching ITV instead—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that is enough about television shows.

[Chris Evans]

I was just wondering what the man at the kitchen table was watching. I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. All we hear is the same old debate and the same charge that it is all the Labour Government’s fault, so let me challenge the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller).

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s enormous generosity in giving way again. Is she aware—I am sure she is—that property prices in London have grown so much that some local authorities have greater asset value than the entirety of Wales? Therefore, the mansion tax is a sort of cap—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Davies, you were right when you said that you have intervened a lot. I do not mind you intervening but please do not take up so much time that you are almost making a speech.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I was not aware of the figure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) refers, but if that is the case, it is a fascinating reflection on the huge differences between different parts of the country. If we do not do something about that soon, we will regret it in the near future.

Labour Members are constantly berated about the fact that we—the previous Government—abolished the 10p tax rate. At the same time, the current Government do not seem that keen on reintroducing it. We are accused of changing our mind, but it now appears that the Government are changing theirs. When the 10p tax rate was abolished, they attempted to make great political capital out of the issue—fair enough; that is what politics is about—and they have done so since by saying that it was a bad thing for us to have done and should not have happened. Now we are talking about reintroducing a 10p tax rate, and suddenly that is a bad thing to do. For people in low-paid employment—of whom there are many—there are advantages in having a more graduated taxation system that enables them to build up disposable income as they go. As we know, disposable income has fallen for many households in this country, which is a serious matter.

Looking specifically at the new clause, I hope it is not unreasonable to suggest that we consider and study such a measure. It perhaps prompts the question of why the Government are so against it, because if they are sure that a study would show that it would not be practicable or successful, there is nothing much to lose. From what the Minister said during an intervention, it sounds as if the Government may have already done some work on the provision, and on that basis, it should not be so difficult. People in the country want to see whether the measure could be a feasible means of ensuring that those who have asset wealth pay their fair share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady must be getting to the point at which she links her remarks with the new clause. I am struggling to see the link at the moment.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The link is that some would argue that a mansion tax would be oppressive on people who may live in a house that is valued at more than £2 million, but have a very low income, and they should not be expected to find that payment. As has been suggested to my constituent and others, such people may wish to consider taking in a lodger, releasing some of their equity or downsizing. I suspect that downsizing with that type of property would be easy. I would hope, therefore, that such arguments would not be made against a mansion tax. I hope that the Government will support the new clause, because if their arguments are as strong as they say, they will be able to disprove our case very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

I, too, hope to see them in the Lobby, but I am sure that they will not be there. That is the wonderful thing about the Liberal Democrats: it is the only party that can support something—have the bare-faced cheek to stand up in favour of something—and then vote for the exact opposite in the Division Lobby. That is what the Liberal Democrats should remember: in the marginal seats that they need to hold on to, they will be judged on their priorities—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Eastleigh want me to give way to him, or is he happy to listen? [Interruption.] Indeed, we do not usually hear from a Liberal Democrat.

The Liberal Democrats will be judged on their priorities, and their priorities have not been what they said they would be. They are not for the students; they are not for the elderly; they are not for the poorest paid in society: they are simply there to prop up this coalition Government. They are becoming nothing but voting fodder for this Tory Administration. I notice that the Tory Members were nodding when I said that. If any further proof were required about who is in the senior part of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Evans, I gave you a little leniency on the earlier new clause, but on this one, we have got so far off the mark that I do not know how to drag you back. I am worried about the time ticking away, and it would be better for the House if you spoke to the new clause. I am sure that that is exactly what you are going to do next.

[Chris Evans]

I have the Bill in my hand, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am going to come to the relevant clause.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Having the clause in the hon. Gentleman’s hand is not necessarily helpful; it is what he says that matters more.

[Chris Evans]

I was just coming on to that point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I just needed time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

And you should speak to the Chair, too.

[Chris Evans]

I ask anybody who says that this mansion tax cannot be introduced to read clause 92, which relates to the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. Under the heading of “Charge to tax”, it states:

“A tax (called ‘annual tax on enveloped dwellings’) is to be charged in accordance with this Part…Tax charged in respect of the chargeable interest if on one or more days in a chargeable period…the interest is a single-dwelling interest and has a taxable value of more than £2 million, and…a company, partnership or collective investment scheme meets the ownership condition with respect to the interest.”

That seems very much like a mansion tax to me. Clause 97 goes on to state:

“The amount of tax charged for a chargeable period with respect to a single-dwelling interest is stated in subsection (2) or (3).”

A table then sets out the annual chargeable amounts, highlighting the taxable value of the interest on the relevant day. It shows that if the property is worth more than £2 million but not more than £5 million, it would raise £15,000; if it is worth more than £5 million but not more than £10 million, it would raise £35,000; if it is worth more than £10 million but not more than £20 million, it would raise £70,000; and if it is worth more than £20 million, it would bring in a whopping great £140,000. If that is not a step towards a mansion tax, I do not know what it is. But still—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I can cope a little bit with this speech. The Liberals may well want to hear the hon. Gentleman, but he has to address the Chair. Constantly looking at the Liberal is not helpful for Mr Thornton, but it would be helpful for Mr Evans if he were looking at the Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the rest of his speech will be conducted through this Chair, rather than through the Opposition chair—much as Mr Leslie would provide him with advice, he really should speak to this Chair.

[Chris Evans]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Much as I think the Liberal Democrats believe that the world revolves around them—[Interruption.]

Multinational Companies and UK Corporation Tax

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind Members that there is a four-minute limit on speeches.

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing the debate and on his contribution, with which I totally agree, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on supporting him.

The vexed question of multinational companies and their failure to pay a fair share of corporation tax on the profits they secure from the activities they undertake in this country has struck an incredibly powerful chord with the British public. If we take the Amazon example, we find that in 2012 it had sales of £4 billion in the UK, yet it paid only £2.4 million in corporation tax, and then took £2.5 million in grants from the UK Government. That is simply unacceptable.

In this climate, people are finding it tough to manage their daily income, there are public expenditure cuts and small businesses feel hounded by HMRC, so I can well understand why there is huge anger at the behaviour of multinational companies that seek so aggressively to avoid paying their tax. I am particularly cross about the argument, which so many of them put forward, that because they pay other taxes they can decide voluntarily whether to pay corporation tax. We all pay our council tax, VAT and income tax; they pay business rates and employer contributions, and should also pay their corporation tax.

I know the Minister is concerned that if we tread too heavily on companies they may seek to relocate elsewhere, but I draw to his attention the remarks of Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, who said that whatever we decide to do, his company would remain here, because this is too important a market for it not to do so. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that feelings are so strong on this issue that we should not, in an attempt to keep multinational corporations here, allow them to blackmail us. Such corporations will stay because of the market: they come here because we are outside the euro and have a strong financial services sector, not because our corporation tax regime treats them gently.

We must toughen up HMRC. It is unacceptable that there has not been one case challenging an internet company on whether it pays a fair share of corporation tax here. I am not convinced that such companies are acting within the law, and until we challenge them we will not know whether I and the members of my Committee, who I think feel the same as I do on the evidence we have received, are right or wrong. Greater transparency is needed. Gone is the age when one could hide behind taxpayer confidentiality; proper information should be given to the public, whether it is a matter of opening up the books of the FTSE top 100 companies, or more naming and shaming of people for tax avoidance.

We should be tougher on public procurement. I welcomed the initiative, but its practical effect is much weaker than the original intent. We must simplify our tax code—six people working on that is not enough. In a climate in which multinationals value their reputation, they see themselves in our market over the longer term, and they, too—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I welcome the moves the Government have been making, but there is still a lot more to do. For example, Vodafone declares a profit of £2.5 billion in Luxembourg, where it has no business. It is incredibly easy for companies to export UK profits to their country of choice. Luxembourg is often the country of choice. It is used by Vodafone, Tesco, Pearson, the Daily Express group and many others.

In fact, it is becoming almost compulsory to do this. Low-risk, profitable businesses, such as utilities, have to do it, otherwise they will be taken over, as most of them have been. That applies to trade takeovers too, such as those involving Boots and Cadbury. Under the system here in the UK, it is almost impossible to be a long-term profitable company without doing this kind of activity.

UK profits are exported. That is a key item in the business case for takeovers, and now we have also got the internet making all this even simpler. As many companies have shown, companies can build up a huge business in a country, apparently without being there. A little quoted part of HMRC’s own rules—I have not got time to read it out now—says it should be going after these companies. It does not apply its own rules, so I urge it to start getting tough and the OECD to start driving home the simple principle that if a company sells in a country, it must account for that there and owe taxes there. Until then everyone will be climbing on the bandwagon—or should I say the Trainline, which now apparently routes its ticket sales through Luxembourg?

I firmly believe the key reason for flat UK growth is that so much of our UK economic activity is no longer counted here. Has productivity really fallen so much that 1 million extra people are producing no extra output, or is that because, for example, Amazon, one of our fastest-growing businesses, is not actually here, and is therefore saving vast amounts of tax?

It is time for Brussels to deal with the cuckoos in the EU nest. Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have arrangements that routinely enable tax avoidance. I am sure the free movement of capital was never meant to mean the free removal of taxes. International work is vital. For example, are the Government dealing with scams used by banks? They can create instruments that are traded between countries with different tax regimes, and with a bit of fancy footwork create a net tax reduction manufactured out of thin air.

I welcome the moves to greater transparency, but there is a long way to go. I recommend the recent Private Eye article, “Where there’s muck, there’s brass plates”, which has highlighted that over 11,000 UK limited liability partnerships have been set up since that was enabled by the last Government and they are now one of the corporate vehicles of choice for the world’s money launderers and tax avoiders. They provide a magic mix of UK respectability and absolutely no transparency or scrutiny. Action is needed.

The Government obviously work regularly with advisers on tax matters, but who are they? They are top finance directors, who will almost certainly be engaged in tax avoidance, and big four tax partners who make a very juicy living from advising on how to avoid tax. I recommend that the Government add people who are involved in tax campaigning, as well as campaigning journalists, global poverty campaigners and other experts who do not have a vested interest in tax avoidance and who can see how toxic the current system is.

In a speech in January I went into more detail about the solutions. Today, I will just make one recommendation. It is time to cap the allowable offshore royalty and interest payments, possibly by only allowing a double taxation relief—in other words people only get tax relief on interest if they have paid tax on it somewhere else. Secondly, we should set up new systems to police our national borders—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Time is up. I call Nick Smith.

Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: 26th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxvi, Chapter 5; 28th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxviii, Chapter 1; 34th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxxiv, Chapter 1; 38th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxxvii, Chapter 2; 40th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxxix, Chapter 2; 4th Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-iv, Chapter 1.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Edward Miliband.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

That was a specific point, but I want to say that it is not only Members of the right hon. Gentleman’s party who have serious questions about primacy. On the European Scrutiny Committee, there is a cross-party problem in particular with the President of the EU’s report “Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union”, which talks about contracts written by the EU—by the Commission—that will be binding on the countries that sign them, and that will then have penalties if they do not carry them out, taking power away from those countries. There is also the question of what happens then with the impact—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Connarty, you were late coming in, so then to make such a long intervention is not good for the Chair either, especially as you will want to speak, as will a lot of other hon. Members. Short interventions are required.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and I was wrong in seemingly indicating that it was only Government Members who share some of these concerns. He has a long and distinguished record of being not only concerned but an active force in drawing attention and suggesting remedies to some of these matters.

On the proposals before us, one suggestion that has been made is that there should be new mechanisms to increase the level of co-operation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament to contribute to this process—it certainly will not be the end of the matter. It has been stated that how it is done is a matter for the Parliaments to determine themselves. I understand that the Conference of Speakers of EU Parliaments agreed in April to set up such an inter-parliamentary conference to discuss EMU-related issues. The conclusions of that meeting state that the conference

“should consist of representatives from all the National Parliaments of Member countries of the European Union and the European Parliament”.

That reflects one of the recommendations in the Select Committee’s report.

The Government have consistently highlighted the importance of these issues since the December European Council. For example, it was highlighted by the Prime Minster in his Bloomberg speech in January, when he set out his agenda for EU reform. He was clear that the future European Union we need must entail a bigger and more significant role for national Parliaments. He said:

“It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU”.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that

“if the European Parliament were the answer to the question of democratic legitimacy we wouldn’t still be asking it.”

He went on to outline a concrete set of ideas, including the proposal to have an EU “red card” system that would allow national Parliaments, working together, to block legislation that should not be agreed at the European level. Furthermore, we have said that we would support calls by this House to summon a European Commissioner to explain a proposal directly to this Parliament if the Committee demanded it.

[Mr Jenkin]

I wholeheartedly support the principles set out on the primacy of national Parliaments in the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech, but neither of the proposals that the Minister has just mentioned—the red card and the summoning of an EU Commissioner—addresses the primacy issue. The red card just creates another opportunity for our national Parliament to be outvoted by other national Parliaments, and summoning an EU Commissioner has no legislative effect whatsoever. What are the Government going to table in concrete terms that will assert the primacy of national—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Jenkin, I have mentioned that we want short interventions. That was your second intervention and you are hoping to speak as well. If you want Members to get in, we are going to have to use the time well—it is going very quickly.

[Greg Clark]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief. Of course these are not panaceas; they are not solutions to the problem. I have said that when these proposals come forward in a more coherent form than they exist in these discussion documents, we will need to ensure that this House—rather than the European Parliament—unambiguously is the body we look to for the endorsement and the legitimacy of these things.

These are important debates. We are at an early stage of the discussions of economic and monetary union, but I applaud the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, on the part of the Committee, to discuss them at an early stage. I am sure that we will come back to them time and again. We are not expecting major decisions to be made in the weeks ahead, but as with the financial transaction tax and as always, we are very aware of the national interest and will always staunchly pursue and promote it. We will very much have in mind the importance of safeguarding the primacy of this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, I see from your look that both the Chair of the Committee and many other hon. Members are keen to contribute to our discussion, and I look forward to hearing their advice and guidance on both these important issues.

Economic Growth

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

People used to say that England’s bread hung by Lancashire’s thread. In this debate, I want to focus on some of the good news on the rebalancing of the economy. The news has not been all bad, and, despite the economic circumstances, my constituents and the people of Lancashire have a good track record of rebuilding and moving forward and of expanding exports and manufacturing.

Manufacturing output rose last month. Today’s figures show that, in my constituency, unemployment dropped again. It dropped compared with last month and with last year. We now have 81,000 more people working in manufacturing than we did in 2011. Despite all the economic troubles, the people of Lancashire live in the real world. They know how the welfare changes have helped to encourage people to get back into work, and they know that the Government’s policy is trying to help businesses large and small to export and grow.

Despite our domestic difficulties on the European Union at the moment, that “real-worldness” of my Lancashire constituents has been demonstrated in the recent local elections. The real story in Lancashire was not the United Kingdom Independence party; it was that the Labour party failed to take back the county that it had run for 26 years. Funnily enough, people are not convinced by the Ed and Ed show, or by Labour’s economic credibility. But let us move away from the European thing. I know that the Opposition would like to focus on it, but I think that it will pass—[Laughter.] Opposition Members might laugh, but there are nine marginal seats in Lancashire, and if Labour cannot win Lancashire county council, it is not going to win a general election fast. Labour knows that.

BAE is one of our local employers, and 19,000 people work in the aerospace industry. Profits are up, orders are up, and it has recently landed a £2.5 billion order from Oman to build Hawks and Typhoons. The Typhoon Eurofighter is made in Samlesbury and Warton. That did not happen by accident, but because of the investment in skills that successive Governments and this Government have put into my constituency. Recently, the Government announced extra funding for Preston further education college, and more is on the way for Myerscough. Building up the skills base is one reason why BAE remains one of the most competitive and leading exporters in the country, training thousands of apprentices every year—some Government funded, some not.

As we speak, the Prime Minister is abroad yet again, trying to make sure that we negotiate a free trade treaty to allow British business to prosper in the American market. Only recently, we had a state visit from the President of United Arab Emirates, which was partly about trying to sell more British and Lancashire-made manufacturing to the middle east. The Prime Minister has taken rebalancing the economy and moving forward on growth seriously.

We have seen investment through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, under its Secretary of State—the Liberal Democrat part of our coalition—that has helped to support the Lancashire local enterprise zone in Samlesbury, where we hope to get skills academies and more investment in our young people.

Then, beyond that, are the changes the Chancellor has produced in the Budget—an increase in the use of the R and D tax credit that rewards our investment, for example, and the rolling out of the patent box, which means people who exploit their intellectual property in this country will pay some of the lowest corporation tax in Europe. That is why this country has a future in growing its manufacturing base and is on the right path to rebalancing.

In future, I want the Government to continue to invest in the F-35 joint strike fighter and the new generation of unmanned aerial vehicles. I also look to a city deal for Preston, hopefully worth £300 million—if we can get the Treasury to move along a bit quicker.

Something that is important for the future of the whole country is shale gas, and it is under my feet, in my constituency, that the Bowland shale exists. It is currently valued at 35 billion barrels of oil equivalent of gas—a $200 billion revenue stream, should it be extracted. We need it in Lancashire and in the country more widely for security of supply; we need it as alternative energy; and we need it to make sure that this country benefits from its assets and its mineral wealth.

We in Lancashire have a story to tell. Lancashire’s history is about reinventing itself and building for the future. It is not for nothing that Preston is one of the northern cities that bucked the trend since 1908 and has been one of the most progressive cities. Let us remember for the future that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). The Democratic Unionist party endorses his views on the amendment, which we support. We believe it is important that the people of the United Kingdom should have a say about their relationship with Europe. Some of those who oppose the commitment to a referendum claim that it will somehow leave us with four years of uncertainty and that that will damage investment in the UK, but the genie is out of the bottle as far as renegotiation and a referendum are concerned. Any investor knows what will happen at some stage in the future, so there should be no difficulty in giving the people of the United Kingdom a say on this very important issue. I will concentrate on other issues that relate to economic growth, but I accept that our relationship with Europe impacts on economic growth in this country.

If we are to achieve the objectives in the Queen’s Speech of giving people job opportunities, rewarding hard work and reforming welfare, economic growth is important. If we are to create economic growth, we need proper stimulus. The Chancellor and the Government argue that we cannot borrow more in order to borrow less. That is not true. Good, solid investment in the economy would help us to grow and to pay our debts. That is not the view of those on the extreme left wing; it is the view of the IMF, which is hardly a left-wing organisation. In fact, many of its policies resonate with what is said by the Government. It is also the view of many industry organisations.

More importantly, the evidence of what has been happening in the economy bears out that view. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) talked about what is happening in his constituency. Nearly every example that he gave was the result of stimulus through Government borrowing and spending to create infrastructure and produce jobs. I could give stacks of examples from Northern Ireland. There has been investment in our tourism industry. Not so long ago, we got a Barnett consequential as a result of the Government deciding to spend more money on housing. We put it into co-ownership housing, which has brought money down from the banks and has led to almost half of the houses being built in the private sector. Just a small amount of money from the public sector has created construction jobs and allowed people to pay their taxes, which adds to Government revenue and helps to pay off the deficit.

There is a strong case, even from traditional supporters of the Government, for borrowing and spending more money to stimulate the economy. The Chancellor made a big point today about the money markets. Actually, the money markets are quite relaxed about this. They are lending money to the United Kingdom on negative interest rates. There is more demand for Government bonds than supply. If there are sensible investment policies, the money can be made available. The question is whether there is the will or whether the Government have some other motive.

I am disappointed that there is not much detail on what the Government intend to do about banking. According to the figures published by the British Bankers Association, lending by the banks in Northern Ireland has fallen substantially since 2010. We have not dealt with the banking crisis. There is not time in this debate to talk about the detail, but unless the Government grasp the nettle and decide what to do with failing banks that are undercapitalised and unable or unwilling to lend, we will not stimulate growth. I believe that there is great potential and that a Government stimulus could release the billions of pounds of cash assets that are sitting on company balance sheets, which would enable us to get growth and achieve the objectives of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will give way very shortly after he has made those comments.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

My constituents feel that 5 million in this country could work but do not. They ought to have more investment and opportunity, and more chances to fulfil their potential. That is why the reforms to welfare to make work pay, the reforms to the skills agenda, the reforms to control migration, and the reforms to control, police and secure our borders are important—they give our fellow citizens more of a chance to do well and succeed in life, and to see their potential unleashed.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5 —Mansion tax

‘The Chancellor shall review the possibility of bringing forward a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million and publish a report, within six months of the passing of this Act, on how the revenue could be used to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes as part of a fair tax system.’.

[Chris Leslie]

This first group of new clauses to this year’s Finance (No. 2) Bill relates broadly to issues of housing policy. Sadly, new clause 6, which urged the Chancellor to focus on the availability of affordable housing particularly in the wake of the bedroom tax, has not been selected for debate. My hon. Friends will be delighted to know, however, that new clause 5 seeks the support of Parliament for a review of a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million and the earmarking of revenues for a tax cut for low and middle-income households.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has just referred to the bedroom tax, and we all know that this has huge implications for the future finance of our country. Does he think that those implications are reflected in the Bill?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

Order. Much as that issue might be in Members’ minds, we are unfortunately not going to discuss it. I allowed a little bit of sailing earlier in the opening comments, but we must now deal with what is on the Order Paper.

[Chris Leslie]

You are of course entirely correct, Mr Hoyle, as we are debating new clauses 1 and 5. New clause 1, however, talks about the Government’s approach to the housing market more broadly and, in the context of taxpayer support for the housing market, it would be remiss of any hon. Member not to recognise the volatility created by consequential changes in other areas of departmental policy, particularly those of the Department for Work and Pensions, as they affect the availability of housing supply. After all, in most of our constituencies and particularly the least well-off ones across the country, there is a sense of foreboding about the potential displacement of many constituents who are being told that they should look for other housing market options when it is, in fact, quite clear that there are no suitable social housing options to fit the circumstances of nine out of 10 of them. You are completely correct, Mr Hoyle, about the nature of new clause 1.

[Chris Leslie]

Very few people—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

Order. We need to stick to where we are. I know that Members are being tempted, but much as we might like to go down that route, I know that we are not going to do so.

[Chris Leslie]

New clause 1 talks about the way in which the Government’s approach may target help on those who want to buy a second home. In tabling new clause, we were concerned that we should prioritise those who need their first home—a primary residence. That is an important part of our argument in new clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

I am happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman, whose intervention falls into the category of a nice try. I think he is referring to the Opposition motion on this issue that we debated five or so weeks ago. The Government amendment to that motion made it crystal clear that, in the context of the coalition, my Conservative Front-Bench colleagues do not support the introduction of a mansion tax in this Parliament; indeed, it is not in the coalition agreement because we could not agree on it at that point. However, the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition does believe that a mansion tax should be introduced. We are happy to do the workings on it and happy to espouse it at every opportunity. It will be in our manifesto at the next general election, and subject to what happens in that election, when I am sure that negotiations may well take place again, perhaps we will have a different outcome. I welcome the fact that the Labour party, which emphatically rejected the principle of a mansion tax in the negotiations in 2010, now seems to be on the way towards conversion to the long-term Liberal Democrat train of thought on this issue.

I also hope that Conservative coalition colleagues might have a conversion between now and 2015. Some of them—in fact, a lot of them; we talk to each other rather more than we used to—whisper in my ear that they wished the Conservative party that embraced this policy. That applies particularly to Conservative MPs from the north of England—north of the line from the Severn to the Wash. Perhaps there are not very many £2 million properties in those constituencies. Nevertheless, a lot of Conservative MPs from outside the south-east of England have privately said to me that they wish the coalition would adopt this principle.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman’s Library notes have been helpful, but I am not quite sure that the journey he is trying to take the Chamber on is relevant to this debate. I am sure that he wants to come back into order with his good Library notes.

[Stephen Williams]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle. Your advice is always given with good heart and accepted freely.

New clause 5 highlights the Labour party’s conversion to the principle of a mansion tax. I said that the new clause was an innovation. Unfortunately, I am a veteran of Finance Bills. I have obviously insulted my Whips Office on several occasions in the past and keep being put on to Finance Bills as a punishment. I remember from last year’s Bill that, time after time, Opposition new clauses and amendments called for studies of the impact of Government policy, while the Opposition proposed no new policies of their own. Now, finally, after three years, they have suggested a new policy, albeit one pinched from my party, but they are still asking the Treasury to do a study of it—even though it is they, not the Government, who proposed it—because the Labour party cannot be bothered to explain how this new policy that it has suddenly converted itself to will actually work.

The Opposition have not provided any clues as to how their approach might work, even though they have had plenty of opportunities to do so. The hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) referred to the Opposition day debate five weeks ago, and the Labour party has since had plenty of opportunities to flesh out how its version of the mansion tax would work in practice. I had hoped that Labour Members would explain it to us today, but they have not.

New clause 5 does not provide many clues. Let me give those on the Opposition Front Bench a piece of advice: if they want to ask somebody else to assess the impact of their own policy, they really ought to give them a bit more detail to work on. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that those who work at the Treasury are very clever people. Among them are a lot of economists and accountants with good qualifications and excellent degrees from top universities, but the Labour party should not think that it can present them with an almost blank piece of paper, which new clause 5 is, and then expect them to be able to explain within a few months how its policy will work without their having been given the barest of details.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is broadly correct.

[Stephen Williams]

Of course, that is broadly correct, but I repeat that if the shadow Minister wishes new clause 5 to be implemented, he needs to provide more detail, so that the House can consider whether it is worthy of support. I do not think it worthy of support, because it is so full of holes. It would waste the time of the mandarins in the Treasury to ask them to come forward with a study for which they do not have the right brief. We have not been told at what rate the Labour party wants to set the mansion tax. Here is another opportunity for the Opposition to help the Treasury. Would the rate be 1%, 2%, 2.5%, 3%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end. I know he has a lot to say, but other Members want to contribute and I want to make sure that the Minister can reply.

[Sammy Wilson]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle; I will finish, then.

What, therefore, are the reservations about this scheme? The first concerns the way in which the spend will be dealt with. Of course, loans have to be repaid, and the scheme has been financed through a DEL cut across Departments of 1%. Secondly, it amounts to £4 billion over the next three years. The question is, could that money, if it is spent on housing, target the most needy, rather than being spent across the board with no restriction on income, meaning that people can buy second homes? Is there a better way of spending that £4 billion? Or, as the hon. Member for Dundee East suggested, if the approach were less prescriptive, are there other capital areas it could be spent on, leading to a far greater multiplier effect and impact on the infrastructure of the United Kingdom? Those are questions about the scheme that need to be asked.

My last point is that although the dynamics of the housing market would suggest that if someone moves from their home to a more expensive, bigger home—I am sure that the Minister will make this argument—it releases houses further down and starts the market moving. My main priority for constituents who come to see me is those who are not even in the housing market at all. Even though the dynamics of getting people to move up the housing chain are important, it seems to me that the priority ought to be those who cannot get social houses and who cannot afford privately rented housing as rents, certainly in Northern Ireland, are going up at a rate that prices many people out of the market. The opportunity should be provided for them to get in at the low end of the market through affordable housing. That is why we need a much more targeted scheme. One reason why I think it would be useful to examine the scheme within a short period of time is that it would show whether the real objectives and priorities in the housing market are being addressed by these schemes.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Sawford]

You can’t even get to two quarters of growth—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[David Rutley]

According to the permanent secretary at the time, wishful thinking was prevalent across the Labour Government, and it led to the hyperbole that it was possible to bring about an end to boom and bust. Of course that did not come to pass; none of that Government’s work did. We are about sustainable growth and putting forward the positive action plan that was included in the Budget—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) wishes to intervene, she should please do so.

amendment of the law

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I confirm for him that the relaxation of planning laws introduced by the new planning Minister has been incredibly helpful to my constituents? It has ensured that work on three brownfield sites is now going ahead, which will be a great boon to the people of Gloucester.

The right hon. Gentleman also made a point earlier about the Secretary of State’s problems with delivery. Given that the right hon. Gentleman agreed earlier with one of my Liberal Democrat friends that delivery was a problem for his party when it was in power, is it not better to focus on the Budget announcements and—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Graham, please keep interventions short. Sixty-one Members wish to get in and speak. If we are going to get on, we must have short interventions.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for agreeing that the Secretary of State is having problems with the delivery of housing. I have already indicated that we will support any measures that will help.

Councils will have to make proper assessments of their housing need. On the Prime Minister’s announcement today on council and social housing and migration, the Secretary of State knows that people cannot just get off a plane and get a council house. He will be familiar, of course, with section 160A of the Housing Act 1996, and he will know that councils already have the power to put in place allocation schemes, because the previous Labour Government issued guidance in 2009 and an increasing number of them are doing so. It would be helpful if we could get clarity about precisely what is being proposed, given that the housing lead of the Local Government Association, Councillor Mike Jones, who is a Conservative, has queried the need for the guidance, and given that this morning’s papers reported that the Government plan to impose an expectation on councils. How exactly is it possible to impose an expectation on councils? [Interruption.] I say to the planning Minister that I have a little bit more experience of Government than him—and it shows.

Ministers are looking to councils to identify housing need, but I say to them that the Growth and Infrastructure Bill will not assist councils in doing so, because clause 1 threatens to take away the power of local communities to decide whether housing is provided. The planning Minister, who is being very vocal, said that “vanishingly few” councils would be caught by that provision. However, to judge by the latest figures, as many as 21 local authorities could be stripped of their democratic accountability in taking decisions on housing planning applications if developers choose to go straight to the Planning Inspectorate.

How does the planning Minister think that will assist communities to take responsibility for housing provision? All of us have to face up to the need to provide more homes. That is the point that he has been making. However, is it better to let developers decide where houses should be built or to allow communities to take that responsibility for themselves?

I turn, finally, to one of the effects of what the Government are doing, which was not mentioned by the Chancellor in his speech on Wednesday. That is the effect that the decisions taken by the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will have on people on low incomes and their homes. So far in this debate, we have talked about the need to build homes so that people can move into them. I want to turn to the problem of people being forced out of their homes because of the Government’s bedroom tax and the Secretary of State’s poll tax.

One consequence of what the Government are doing is likely to be rising rent arrears. That is exactly what councils and housing associations up and down the country are anticipating. Last week, the evidence from the universal credit pilot showed rising rent arrears. That is creating a lot of uncertainty, not least for housing associations. A number of them have had credit rating downgrades recently. If lenders think that housing associations will have difficulty collecting rent, it could put up their borrowing costs, which could impact on their balance sheets and their ability to borrow. Ultimately, it will affect their ability to build the homes that the Secretary of State says he wants to see. All of that will create huge challenges for families, councils and housing associations, not least because of the debt that people will get into.

At the very time when the Chancellor has decided that the most important thing to do is to cut the top rate of tax, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has brought in his new poll tax and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has brought in the bedroom tax. What is so astonishing is that they are both singling out one group of people in our society. Whether they are working, seeking work or unable to work, the people who will be affected are those on the very lowest incomes, because that is why they get council tax benefit and housing benefit.

Given that the fundamental problem in the country is a lack of growth in the economy—the Chancellor’s crowning failure—have Ministers paused for a second to consider what impact those two taxes will have on the economy? All the evidence shows that when people who are on low incomes have money, they tend to spend it. In Leeds, £9.4 million—[Interruption.] I know that the planning Minister, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, does not want to hear this, but the people on the lowest incomes in Leeds are going to lose £9.4 million that they do not have because of rent increases and council tax rises.

Incredibly, last week the Secretary of State tried to blame local authorities for his policy, when he said that they

“seek to persecute and to tax the poor.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 611.]

That is extraordinary. The only person who is to blame is the Secretary of State. It is his legislation. He is the reason why bills are landing on people’s doorsteps that many of them will find hard to pay. Ministers know that people will do their best to stay in their own home—indeed, the Government’s assessment expects that to happen—because they want to stay with their friends, family and community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that there is a limit of five minutes on speeches. If we could have short interventions, that would help to get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cunningham]

Obviously, I—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not sure that we need to be dragged around the Scottish Parliament and Scottish leaders. This is supposed to be a Budget debate, and I do not see a true connection.

[Mr Cunningham]

I will accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Why was there nothing in the Budget about manufacturing green technology? If that was the Budget’s intention, it could hardly be any less green than it is. This Government launch initiatives, but then seem to forget them. In 2001, the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged that 100,000 people would be able to buy their own home; 18 months later, only 1,500 had done so. I hope that this will not be the fate of the schemes announced in last week’s Budget, too.

Public sector workers have had yet another 1% pay cut levied on them. As I understand the Chancellor’s Budget statement, this will probably last until 2015. I believe that 1.4 million public sector workers, including nurses, paramedics, midwives and prison staff, are affected by that policy. Those jobs are spread out across the country rather than being just London-based. Rather than cutting those people’s pay by 1%, putting more money in the pockets of these workers would be an excellent way to stimulate demand across the country. Instead, the Government are stifling those workers’ spending ability. Furthermore, a high proportion of women in the public sector will be affected. I fear that the Government’s approach will hurt working women disproportionately. It certainly does not encourage aspiration.

Cuts in funding for Coventry city council will hit the most vulnerable people in the city. The council’s community services director must make a third of its £63 million budget cuts by 2016. Last week cuts of £6 million were announced, which will mean the closure of day care centres used by hundreds of elderly and disabled people, the axing of subsidies for transport to day centres, the ending of housing-with-care bedsit schemes for the vulnerable, and the cutting of housing-related support that is currently provided for the elderly and disabled. Roughly 160 carers are expected to lose their jobs. It is predicted that thousands of elderly people will be affected, as well as people with learning disabilities, Alzheimer’s and mental health problems.

We should judge our society according to how we treat the most vulnerable, the old, the sick and the young, not according to how we treat our millionaires. We are failing fast, and this Budget will do nothing to help those people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

Thanks to the measures taken by this Government, the deficit is coming down, we have record employment and interest rates are at record lows. I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome all those things, just as businesses in my constituency do.

The Chancellor made the point in his Budget statement that for the first time in more than two decades we are exporting more goods to non-EU countries than to EU ones, and I welcome that. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), for whom I have huge respect, said that there is no growth, but, as he well knows, there is growth; we are expanding our exports to some of the world’s key economies, which is a result of the policies that this Government have put in place and of the good work being done by UK Trade & Investment and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Small and medium-sized businesses still tell us that there is a fear factor when they are looking to enter new markets. UKTI and the FCO have been great at targeting high-growth nations and opening new offices, but we need to turbo-charge that expansion. We need not only to target three, four or five cities in these huge economies such as India and Indonesia, but to go into the 15 or 20 top tier 1 and tier 2 cities. In those economies it is not only the national Governments who make decisions; the state governments make many of the big decisions on investment, which is why we need to turbo-charge our approach and get these offices across these countries quickly. The Government, together with UKTI, should provide practical help by taking on office space in these key cities, basing sector experts from the UK Government and UKTI there, and working with local enterprise partnerships to get out there and allow SMEs low-cost desk and office space for three, six or 12 months. The synergies that will be created as a result of all these companies coming together in one location, with sector focus and where we can also get local advisers involved, will do a huge amount to boost our exports. We want to go from having one in five SMEs exporting to having one in four, which is the European average. That will add billions of GDP to our economy. UKTI is doing a great job with the headstart scheme, but we need to build on such initiatives.

The final point I wish to make is about the local Labour party in Reading—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not sure that this is totally relevant to the Budget, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to stray from what the good people of Reading want to hear about the Budget.

[Alok Sharma]

Of course not, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I wanted to say was about jobs. We have really good news coming out of Reading, but I never hear people from the local Labour party welcoming new jobs or celebrating business success. They do not do good news. They are anti-aspiration and anti-business, very much like many of the Opposition Members who have spoken in these Budget debates. Let me tell hon. Members what Geoff Foley in my constituency says about Labour Reading council:

“Reading Borough Council do not really give a thought to local businesses”—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sure that Reading borough council knows exactly what it is talking about, but I am not sure that this is relevant to today’s Budget debate. I am being very generous and I think we are going to run out of time, so one quick mention of Reading without the Labour party would be helpful.

[Alok Sharma]

Let me conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by commending this Budget and urging everyone to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates me and for once—in fact, not for the first time—we agree. If Lancashire is to be used to fill the energy gap and if Lancashire will see fracking across the county, we need to understand that it is not Texas and landowners in Lancashire do not own the mineral rights. The Chancellor will gain through the tax system, companies will gain through their profits and, presumably, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Crown Estate will gain through the tax on mineral rights, but the local councils will gain precious little. I was pleased that the Chancellor said in his Budget that there would be specific proposals to allow local communities to benefit, but I tell the Ministers on the Front Bench that Lancashire expects more than one or two parish hall roofs to be fixed. We want to see something that will return money to Lancashire when the gas has been fracked, if that fracking is to go ahead. I need to make that clear.

Finally, on infrastructure, hon. Members talked about growth. For me, the key point was the Chancellor’s phrase about “clearing the economic arteries”. In the north-west, that means something substantial and we have had that from this Government. We have had the biggest investment in rail for the last 30, 40 or 50 years. It was all right Opposition Members saying that that would happen in future—it is happening now. I point to my own station in Lancaster, where £8.5 million is already being spent to vary the signalling so that trains can turn around in Lancaster and more platforms can be used. That is the small-scale work. Only last week, the Department for Transport finally agreed the M6 link road, which will be a bypass for Lancaster to the port of Heysham. It will bring thousands of jobs through a scheme for which the first plans were produced in 1948—that is perhaps a lesson to us all. It has taken this coalition Government to agree the money to get things moving and get the growth.

As the Secretary of State mentioned, there is still a great deal more for local councils to do. I am pleased that the Conservative councils in my area, Wyre borough council and Lancashire county council, have kept the council tax frozen. Not only that, but Lancashire has cut it by 2%—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.