Covid-19: Economy Update

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

We have tried to reduce the bureaucracy by making sure that we do not have overlapping schemes at the same time. That would only increase complexity for businesses. We have endeavoured in all ways to provide support on a UK-wide basis, as I have said in conversations with the First Minister and others. We are doing this on a UK-wide basis in the knowledge that devolved nations are making individual decisions that ultimately the UK Government and UK taxpayer will be funding. That situation will work only if people can work in a constructive and aligned spirit, which is what I have said to all, and I very much hope that that can be continued in the coming months.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The measures he has announced are significant and generous, delivered in a manner that is fast becoming this Chancellor’s hallmark. May I thank him for hearing the powerful arguments advanced by the west midlands Mayor, Andy Street, especially in respect of the hospitality industry, and for addressing the serious business jeopardy that did lie between tiers 2 and 3?

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend is right that the Mayor, Andy Street, has been vocal, and rightly so, in highlighting the particular impact of the tier 2 restrictions on the hospitality industry. That helped inform our decision to act today, with speed and scale, to provide support to those businesses, which will be warmly welcomed in his area.

Finance Bill

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

We need to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders help to bear the cost of the recovery that the Government need to secure for our country. It is more important than ever to make sure that the big players that have benefited greatly from this crisis are taxed properly, reasonably and fairly and do not simply continue to shift around their sizeable profits. That is why we have tabled our amendments so that we can be sure that this is the right approach to digital taxation in these times of crisis and so that we can continue to consider what more can be done, not just in five years, but next year and every year.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to interests, which are set out clearly in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I rise to speak to new clause 33, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) who, alas, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) from the Opposition Front Bench, cannot be here today. The House may rest assured that she will be watching every word of this debate from where she is.

The House will notice that not one but three former and current Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee—the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), as well as the right hon. Member for Barking—have signed the new clause. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who is unavoidably locked down with his two adorable new children and who has great expertise in this policy area, has also signed it

New clause 33 makes a number of points. The first is that any company that is subject to the new digital services tax, which came into force this April, must publish transparently and publicly a country-by-country report. Although as it stands in the amendment paper the new clause does not include a starting date, that was rectified this morning and the starting date would be April 2021.

The new clause is targeted at international technology giants—that is Google, Facebook and Amazon. These huge businesses are well known for using corporate structures deliberately designed to shield them from the payment of tax. The new clause would allow Parliament, journalists, campaigners and civil society to see clearly whether these businesses are paying their fair share of taxation. If the Government accept the new clause, that would, as the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South suggested, make the UK a world leader in financial transparency. It would give a major boost to country-by-country reporting for all corporations, so that everyone can see that tax is paid on profits in the locations where those profits are earned.

Let me be clear at the outset that it is not our intention to divide the House on the new clause today—subject to the Minister, who is a very clever fellow, showing due respect for advancing this agenda and for the importance of making progress on this issue in due course.

In my submission, there are three reasons why the new clause really matters. The first is that its logic sits four-square behind the priorities of the Conservative-led coalition—I thought the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South could perhaps have given a little more attention and, indeed, support in this respect—who wanted to inject greater transparency and openness into the financial system, in the first instance by championing open registers of beneficial ownership, which were introduced in the UK in 2016.

The open-registers process has been enhanced over the past two years, during which the right hon. Member for Barking and I persuaded the House that open registers should be embraced by the overseas territories and subsequently secured agreement that the Crown dependencies would also implement them. Such progress is a huge advance in tackling money laundering and financial corruption, and it bears down heavily on tax evasion as well. It also makes it more difficult for bent politicians and corrupt businesspeople to steal money from poor countries and their citizens. The new clause builds on that whole approach.

Secondly, at this dreadful time in our country, when our constituents are suffering financially so severely and our Government are rightly seeking to help every family as we combat the economic effects of this crisis, it is frankly obscene and very offensive that some major corporations who rely on UK customers and make huge profits in our country should not pay their fair share of tax. The public and the public finances cry out for fairness and equity, particularly at a time like this, when some companies have benefited from taxpayer-funded rescue packages organised by the Government while not contributing equitably to the public purse. Public expenditure is now at an all-time high. This borrowing will have to be paid for and it is simply not right or fair that while most taxpayers will have to pay more tax—85% of us pay taxation through PAYE—some multinational companies deliberately create financial structures to avoid paying tax.

I also point out to right hon. and hon. Members that those same multinationals are undermining British business by undercutting them on price. They can do that because they do not pay tax at anything like the same rate. In Sutton Coldfield, we are struggling to make a success of our town centre and high street, to renew it and reinvigorate it, but Amazon undercuts bookshops in our high streets and stores such as John Lewis in our shopping centres because it can avoid paying its fair share of tax.

Thirdly—this is of particular importance to developing countries—credible research shows that developing countries lose three times as much each year from tax avoidance as they gain from development aid. The OECD has been pressing for international reform in tax rules for decades. Those countries with the most to lose have been most resistance, so the OECD compromise was that information should be provided confidentially to the tax authorities. While that is progress of a sort, it does not really help developing countries, for obvious reasons to do with cost and with complexity. Clearly, it would be better, as with open registers, for all the data simply to be placed in the public domain so that there is a level playing field and public accountability for the tax conduct of multinational enterprises worldwide.

[Sir Edward Davey]

The right hon. Gentleman may remember that during the coalition Government, we put measures through, agreed at European level, for a directive on transparency on payments made by the extractive industries across the developing world because of concerns about corruption with respect to mining in particular. That created greater transparency. The same approach could be taken on the tax issues that he is raising.

[Mr Mitchell]

Yes, the extractive industry transparency initiative, which has been led by a former Member of this House, Clare Short, for some time, did a huge amount of good as, of course, have open registers, because open registers have continued that agenda of transparency. As I said at the outset, this agenda was championed and driven forward internationally through the British at the G8.

[Sammy Wilson]

I agree with all the points that the right hon. Gentleman has been making. Does he accept that unless we can dig behind the accounts to see where companies, for example, inflate costs in countries where they can get lower tax rates and deflate costs in countries with higher tax rates, a tax strategy in itself is simply not going to ensure that we get behind how companies avoid paying tax in the countries where they earn the profits?

[Mr Mitchell]

There is an important principle: while commercial confidentiality should not be compromised, we should move to greater transparency to tackle the problems that lie behind what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I agree with that and I think that there is common cause across the House that that is what we want to do. Clearly, getting a multinational standard will be the right result, but these things have to be led.

In summary, the new clause is part of the noble campaign that is supported across the House, to shine a light on the profit shifting, transfer pricing and tax haven abuse that is used to minimise tax liabilities. The House has already voted in favour of public country-by-country reporting through an amendment to the Finance Bill in 2016, which gave the Treasury the power to make the information public. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will no doubt rely on the prayer of St Augustine, “O Lord, make me chaste, but not yet,” and argue that the UK would not want to implement this reform unilaterally, and he has already acknowledged, in a letter to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) dated 27 February this year, that a multinational agreement to do country-by-country reporting would be a good achievement, but I put it to him that that is too timid an approach.

As we contemplate Britain’s role post Brexit and we set out what we mean by global Britain, let my right hon. Friend stand tall, show leadership internationally, and follow the proud, confident example of David Cameron and George Osborne. Let global Britain lead by example, to the huge benefit of our domestic taxpayers and taxes, and for those in the poorest countries, whose mineral wealth is so often developed without their citizens reaping the benefits they should receive and that they deserve. This reform would be in the finest traditions of Britain’s past international development leadership, and I commend the new clause to the House.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

We support a fit-for-purpose digital services tax. Our new clause 5 seeks a review of how effective the Treasury plan is. It would force the Government to assess the digital services tax’s effectiveness and draw conclusions on that information within six months.

It is unfair that multinational online firms pay less tax than small high street shops, and the SNP has long said that we would support a fit-for-purpose tax, but during the lockdown many people have become adept at finding what they need online, from replacement parts for the oven and a tablet and macaroon subscription in my case, to clothes, trampolines, desks, chairs, food and drink, and this period may well have a permanent effect on how people do their messages.

The high street has been facing difficulties for many years now, under fierce competition from digital competitors. Retailers including Intu, Debenhams, Oasis and Warehouse have gone into administration, and job losses were announced today at Harrods, John Lewis and Arcadia Group—all while online retailers are booming. It is not a level playing field, and it seems only fair that the taxation system catches up and seeks to level it out. I agree with the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) that streaming services are also a huge money-spinner, and I do not see why the UK Government would not want to get in on that action. Taxes going uncollected in an area that is growing would be useful to Treasury coffers right now.

As the digital services tax is a new measure, it is vital that we try to capture how effective it is. By their very nature, online companies can be nimbler than their bricks-and-mortar counterparts, and it is always possible to find loopholes. We will wait to see how successful the policy is, but it is regrettable that the UK failed to implement it alongside international partners, despite countries such as France, Spain and Italy seeking to introduce similar measures. I appreciate the difficulties and limitations of work in the OECD, but co-operation is all the more important in the face of the US attempting to apply pressure to shut down the measure. Steve Mnuchin, the US Treasury Secretary, has stated:

“The United States remains opposed to digital services taxes and similar unilateral measures… As we have repeatedly said, if countries choose to collect or adopt such taxes, the United States will respond with appropriate commensurate measures.”

I wish the UK Government all the best in that fight, but it would surely be wise to enlist other countries for hauners, rather than taking the UK through this alone. I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury updated us on the progress of international co-operation.

On the subject of loopholes, I share the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) made clear in our amendment in Committee on the significance of Scottish limited partnerships. SLPs have been used for a huge and well documented range of nefarious ends, including money laundering, arms running and undermining democracy, yet they are still being advertised as an ideal way to avoid paying tax and hide under a veneer of respectability. It is entirely conceivable that online companies could use SLPs or other such vehicles to avoid their obligations and shift their profits, and we in the SNP want to ensure that the Government are aware of this, and to encourage them to act. The abuse of SLPs has gone on for far too long.

--- Later in debate ---

In this House, it is not just aid that we should set our mind to if we want to have a more equal world. It is the things that we can do that are not about giving money, but about changing the rules of the game to make sure people in the poorest parts of the world can run their own Governments in pursuit of good public services, meaning that the poorest kids in the world get an education. That is what these taxes should pay for.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I think two very good examples are Pakistan, where British techniques and expertise have helped the Pakistan authorities to raise more tax from their citizens, and Rwanda, where Britain helped the Rwandan Government set up a fair and equitable system of taxation that has worked and succeeded in helping that country to fund its expenditure. Back in 2007, the Rwandan Government raised only about 20% of their annual expenditure, and today they raise over 80%.

[Alison McGovern]

I know some people think that tax is boring, but how could we listen to that example, talking about one of the countries that has suffered worst in the world in my lifetime, and not think that this new clause—the issue of getting tax to the place where it belongs—is truly a great mission that we should all subscribe to? Forgive me for being passionate about it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think it is much more important than any of us ever properly give it credit for.

The DFID aspect of this is absolutely crucial. If we want to stop giving aid forever and a day—I personally think that that should be our objective in having a more equal world—we absolutely need to pull every other lever that we possibly can in this House to get developing countries and poor countries globally the tax they are due, and this is how we will do it. As has been mentioned, this House has already voted in favour of it. It is quite obvious from the debate today that there is cross-party support, and, given all the other controversies that we have to deal with, why we would not do something supported by all corners of the House, I do not know.

The Minister will forgive me for telling him that while accepting that the Government have gone so far and have made efforts and shown willing, there is an old trade union saying, “When you argue with the manager, never say that they have done nothing; always say that they have not yet done enough.” That is my message to the Minister: you need to go further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I think one could put it a slightly different way, which is to say, “You do not have to take a position on avoiding tax to come to the view that this is a base of tax revenue that has not been adequately taxed and should be taxed, and if you do follow that approach,” —here I will defer to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern)—“ipso facto you are going to be levelling the playing field to a degree.” Anti-avoidance measures are measures used in separate contexts to level the playing field as well.

[Mr Mitchell]

The Minister is getting to the meat of the matter in what he is saying now, but while he rightly extols the virtues of some very good companies that he has named, which voluntarily publish whereabouts in the world their activity is taking place, where their profits are declared and where they are paying tax, by definition, if it is voluntary, those who are up to no good probably will not comply. That is one of the reasons why publishing that information in the way I set out in my earlier remarks is so important, because there is greater pressure on them if they do not comply, including the sanction of the law.

[Jesse Norman]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. My point was a slightly different one. I have not yet come to the thrust of what he is suggesting about mandation, but in the first instance Government should be seeking to support, promote, energise and activate more voluntary compliance, precisely in order to increase a public norm of voluntary reporting, which then does a lot of the job and perhaps isolates the groups that decide not to do it. There are plenty of other contexts in which that approach of voluntary, then moving to mandatory, has been quite successful, including in tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the different organisations have different ways of working—the G20 tends to work towards summits, and the OECD often has a more continuous process. The most important work is always done in between, in the official interactions that then set the terms. Often one does not know exactly what will be on the agenda until the last minute, so it is hard to give a specific undertaking. I am not avoiding that; I simply do not think it is possible to give that undertaking. I can tell him that we are extremely keen to promote voluntary compliance, and we continue to press for a multilateral approach.

[Mr Mitchell]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous. This is an ingenious argument that he is putting to the House about restructuring, and it might be helpful to flesh that out in correspondence. The argument about the unilateral and multilateral approach was clear in relation to open registers of beneficial ownership, when the House obliged the Government to accept that there was a case for going through the unilateral approach in order to get a multilateral approach. I understand what he is saying, but I think it would be helpful to flesh out the point about restructuring.

[Jesse Norman]

If my right hon. Friend wants to raise some specific questions, I would be delighted to respond to them. There is a slight tension in his argument, because it contains the following two claims: first, that these international organisations are shape-shifting amoebas that constantly mutate to avoid tax, and secondly, that that shape-shifting and amoebic quality will stop when it comes to thinking about how to react to a unilateral tax transparency initiative.

Coronavirus Bill

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I agree, and I do not understand why the Government have gone in this direction. I have been told in several private meetings that it is because they believe that the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 can only be used when they do not know that something is coming down the line, but I think the definition of an “emergency” in section 19 of the 2004 Act would allow for every single thing that we are considering.

I tabled an amendment, and I must apologise to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), because it is entirely my fault that, by accident, his name ended up on my amendment. I am terribly sorry. If the Government Whips want to beat anybody up, they should beat me up. There is a serious point here, which is that if the Government are going to take draconian powers and give themselves the power to switch them on and off, that should come back to Parliament more frequently even than is allowed for in the Government’s amendment.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman may well be right about the Civil Contingencies Act, because the drafter of that legislation has confirmed that that is his understanding—at least, I believe that to be the case. I agree that two years is too long. I would have preferred the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) to be adopted. I do not think there is any sense in the Committee that we want to vote on this. We want to put the Government on notice that the length of time is a matter of concern and we must have a chance to review the legislation; the Government appear to be moving towards agreeing to six-monthly reviews. Although I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the matters that he has sought to enshrine in his amendment, I think that that would encapsulate the will of the Committee.

[Chris Bryant]

I have absolutely no intention of dividing the House. The nation does not need dividing and I do not think the Committee needs dividing on these matters either. I am grateful to the Government, who have tried to be in as listening a mood as they possibly can. My anxiety, however, is that the Government’s amendment, as tabled, is defective and simply does not work. My anxiety is that in six months’ time the Government will present us with a take it or leave it argument—you’ve either got the whole Act and all the provisions carrying on for another six months or you’ve got to leave it—and retain those powers for another 18 months.

--- Later in debate ---

Turning to mental health and amendments 64 and 65, there are changes in the Bill to the detention regime and a restriction whereby someone can be detained on the say-so of a single doctor, which is a significant change for committal. That is set out in schedule 7. In the first instance, can that be the case only where it is absolutely necessary? Secondly, can we have no single recommendation from a doctor at a private hospital when the patient is detained at that hospital? Can we at least seek to adhere to timetables that are already in place? There are powers in the Bill on extension and removal of time limits, which clearly no Parliament in ordinary circumstances would wish to introduce. Can the Minister at least give some sort of guarantee that timetables will be respected as far as possible?

[Mr Mitchell]

So that I am certain that I have understood the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, is he saying that once the immediate crisis is over anyone who has been sectioned under that regime should immediately be subject to the existing regime?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, absolutely. In fact, that should apply not just in the mental health sphere. If these are truly temporary measures, that has to apply across a range of measures.

Budget Resolutions

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), although I fear that my speech will take a slightly different view. I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register.

The Chancellor faced a pretty difficult task today—he was said to be between a rock and a hard place—but this is a sensible and pragmatic Budget. I think he will be well content with that analysis.

I want to start with the midlands, because I represent part of that area. We are very pleased that we now have the second devolution deal. The support for the automobile industry—for driverless and electric cars—is enormously important. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, how much that matters in the west midlands. The midlands is at the centre of this industry. We are leaders in technology, design and production internationally. We very much welcome that support, more of which I think is to be announced later this week.

The £200 million that we receive for cleaning up brownfield land is now being spent, thanks to the vigour and effort of Andy Street, our Mayor. He is doing a very good job. I hope the Treasury will consider providing more funding when that £200 million has been used. The importance of spending money on cleaning up brownfield land is immense, because it means that we do not have to build on the green belt. We should only ever do that as a last resort. We in the west midlands are delighted that we are to be part of a national pilot of Housing First, which is a particular priority of our Mayor, Andy Street. The pilot will allow us decisively to address rough sleeping across the west midlands, and we are determined to do so.

I express my gratitude to the Government for the announcement that resources will be made available for the children’s emergency medicine and paediatric care centre at Birmingham Children’s Hospital. Many of us have campaigned for that, and the news is excellent.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

If I may, I will take my right hon. Friend back to housing for a moment. Does he agree that the Budget needs to be seen in the round with other Government announcements, particularly the opportunities in the White Paper for local authorities to build once again?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend makes his point exceedingly eloquently.

I want to underline to the House the fact that free enterprise and open markets have been, and continue to be, the greatest engines of social and economic advancement known to man. We need to stand up for those things more than we have done recently, against the opposing views espoused by the shadow Chancellor and, indeed, by large numbers of young people who were not around to learn some of the pretty basic economic truths that many of us learned in the 1970s and ’80s.

Having said that, capitalism has always required Governments and regulators to set boundaries to human activity and, inevitably, human greed, and that point chimes in very well with the activist views that our Prime Minister has expressed since she took up the job. I want to point briefly to three areas in which I think such regulation of capitalism is of the greatest importance. The first, which we have debated in the House, concerns open ownership registers, particularly for the British overseas territories. That was an initiative of the Cameron Government. We in Britain have imposed such transparency on ourselves, and we need to do so for the overseas territories. Many in this House care deeply about the matter, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). It is important that the Treasury recognises that point in the Finance Bill, and I very much hope that it will do so.

Energy prices are the second area in which regulation is important. The Government are absolutely right to pursue that, because the current monopolistic situation works against the interests of consumers. The right way to deal with it is by regulation rather than by nationalisation, which is entirely unnecessary because of the regulatory regime.

Other Members have mentioned the third area in which regulation is required, but I will make the point again. A recent study of the annual reports of FTSE 100 companies shows that average pay for chief executives rose from £5 million a head in 2014 to £5.5 million in 2015. I find it offensive and totally unjustifiable that that is 140 times the average salary of their employees. It is noteworthy that only a quarter of FTSE 100 companies pay the voluntary living wage to their employees. The scale of that inequality, which is vastly greater than it was, gives capitalism a bad name. At a time when inequality more generally has fallen, with income inequality at its lowest rate for 30 years, this is something that the Government need to address through regulation.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the OECD identified a relationship between inequality and growth, namely that more inequality means less growth and a smaller cake. Is he also aware that when it is analysed using the Gini coefficient—the normal way of evaluating inequality—inequality in the UK is among the highest and fastest growing in Europe?

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s last point. I will rest on the recently published statistics showing that income inequality is now at a 30-year low in Britain.

My final point, which has already been raised today, is about intergenerational fairness. It is of course absolutely right that housing inequality should be right at the top of the list. We want future generations to have the opportunities that our generation had in terms of not only ownership, but part-ownership and rental. The importance of the decisions announced in the Budget is that they will give a real boost to the creative use of space. There is real encouragement for using brownfield land, which I spoke about earlier, and it is quite right to attack the misuse of land banks. It is also absolutely right to be creative in building new communities, but we need far more imagination. I would like the Government to commit to 1 million new housing starts over the next three years, which is slightly further than they have gone today.

We need to recognise that building new communities and focusing on infrastructure are absolutely at the top of everyone’s agenda. We should look at garden cities, and many people will be delighted at what the Government have said today. In the midlands, we want the Black Country garden city to be developed; so far, it is an idea without much flesh on the bones, and we need far more flesh to be added to those bones. We must build in the right places—progress will become ever more bogged down if we start to attack the green belt, and in my view, it is very important that the Government do not do that—but such building should be the top priority.

When it comes to intergenerational fairness, which everyone agrees is vital, we must not forget that excessive borrowing makes it worse. In the past six months, Germany had a public spending surplus of £8 billion, but we had a deficit of about £26 billion. This will have to be repaid, and it is a cruel and unfair deception on the next generation if we do not make it clear that if our generation does not repay it, theirs will have to do so. Austerity is not optional. It is not a Tory vice; it is fiscal responsibility, and we have to return to living within our means.

My final point on intergenerational fairness is that one of the best investments in future generations is Britain’s contribution to international development. The work Britain is doing, with the commitment made across the House to the 0.7% target, is driving real change in the world—it does a huge amount to help some of the poorest in our world—and contributes directly to making the world a safer and more prosperous place for future generations. It tackles directly the international dangers from climate change, migration, terror, pandemics and protectionism, and the Government should make more of this work. The Government, of which I was proud to be a part some five years ago, have done an immense amount, and such work is very important in addressing intergenerational inequity. In making more of such work, the Government will note that it is very strongly supported by people from across our country who are under 35—a cohort conspicuously absent among Tory voters at the last election.

I want to end by saying how pleased I am to see that the Government have given £1.3 million from the LIBOR fines to ZANE—Zimbabwe a National Emergency—a body that does hugely good work for elderly people in Zimbabwe. On behalf of all those involved with ZANE, I express my gratitude to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making that very wise decision.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

The obvious answer is the scale of Labour’s economic mismanagement. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his party’s 2008 Budget planned for a £43 billion deficit, which is more than all the revenues raised in excise duty. That says everything we need to know about Labour’s financial economic management.

[Mr Mitchell]

Does my right hon. Friend not think that the Opposition have a brass neck to intervene on her in that way? They criticise the Government for not cutting the deficit faster, yet on every single occasion when they have been invited to support the deficit-cutting strategy they have voted against it.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. On many occasions since 2010, the Labour party has not only not supported the Government’s approach on deficit reduction, but failed to vote to support policies to reduce the deficit and bring sound financial economic management back into our public finances. We have come a long way on bringing the deficit down and understanding the reasons why sound financial management matters. We need money to be available to invest in our public services. We need an economy that embraces enterprise, which brings in the tax receipts to pay for hospitals, schools, police and the armed forces. Today’s Budget absolutely recognises that fundamental point.

We have heard criticism in the debate about the NHS. Our NHS is a great institution. It is right that the Chancellor has today committed more public funds— billions—to the NHS. As an Essex Member of Parliament, I am delighted to see new support and capital investment in the NHS. Frankly, for 13 years under Labour, health services in Essex went backwards and suffered from underfunding. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) is right to say that Labour Members have a brass neck criticising the work we have been doing and the investment we have made.

One great success since 2010 is the record level of job creation in our economy. Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I recall sitting through these debates from 2010 onwards hearing doom and gloom and scaremongering from the Labour party, with outlandish claims about unemployment and recession. As we know, those predictions proved to be completely wrong. In today’s Budget, we heard about greater investment in key sectors going forward. We know we have to think about the future of the labour market. Automation will be coming in, and we need to consider how we can invest in construction and key services.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on securing this debate. She brings great expertise and authority on these matters, not least from her time on the Public Accounts Committee.

The most important point for the House to focus on this afternoon is that this is absolutely not a party political issue. Although the right hon. Lady raised some criticisms of this Government, she also raised criticisms of the Government of which she was a member. In my judgment, the only plausible criticism that can be made of the current Government is that they need to speed up some of the initiatives they have already implemented. They have not done so in respect of the overseas territories because, obviously, we would rather those havens took action themselves—to be fair, to some extent they have already started to do so.

On the actions taken by the Government, David Cameron and George Osborne led the international effort at the G8 to clamp down on such matters, particularly tax avoidance and evasion. The UK introduced publicly accessible registers of people with significant control, abolished bearer or anonymous shares and, importantly, introduced unexplained wealth orders. The anti-bribery law, work on which first started under John Major in Paris in 1995, was finally introduced in this country by David Cameron in 2011, after 13 years of Labour government.

On this Government’s record, let us be clear that they have been taking action and have raised an immense amount of extra tax as a result. However, the time has come—this is my third debate on this issue—to insist on the same levels of openness and transparency for the overseas territories as we have in this country. The territories gain hugely from their relationship with the United Kingdom and, as the Government made clear in 2012,

“As a matter of constitutional law the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the Territories.”

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know from his considerable expertise on international development that the abuse of such offshore schemes not only harms British taxpayers but disadvantages some of the world’s poorest people. That is why the Government must act to introduce greater transparency in Crown dependencies and overseas territories.

[Mr Mitchell]

I am coming on to precisely that point.

Like many Members, I have been visited by senior Ministers of almost all the overseas territories, and the position of the territories is best summed up by the prayer of St Augustine: “Oh Lord, make me chaste—but not yet.” The territories put two specific arguments. I call the first the Dutch Antilles argument, which is that if the territories have open registers, the hot money will head off to the Dutch Antilles. There is momentum around the world, thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne, to attack such ills and unfairnesses. Havens that embrace an open register will get an advantage from being at the front of opening up to billions of pounds of legitimate business.

The second argument—in a way, this is the one we have to address head-on—is that the territories’ private registers are already available to lawmakers and regulators, such as HMRC. The territories proudly say that they will turn round inquiries from HMRC within a matter of hours, which is good, but it completely misses the point, as the recent release of information shows. Registers must be open to the media, to journalists, to non-governmental organisations and to those who can join up the dots. The regulatory authorities, with the best will in the world, are not in that business. Narrow questions, drawn from regulatory authorities, simply do not begin to suffice.

[Robert Neill]

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. Does he also accept that it is fair that we should not lump all the overseas territories into one basket? Some are much more compliant than others, Gibraltar being one.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I specifically exclude Gibraltar from what I am saying because it is not an example of what we are talking about.

Time is short. My final point is that the United Kingdom led on the 0.7% target. Around the world, the United Kingdom is looked to for leadership on international development. International development is part of this Parliament’s identity, it is who we are and it is part of global Britain. We have an obligation, not least to our own taxpayers, to champion transparency and openness and to have zero tolerance towards corruption.

When we first came into government in 2010, the Department for International Development led the way with its transparency guarantee. We openly published all expenditure above £500 on the internet. It may be a cliché, but sunlight really is the best disinfectant. That is at the heart of what we are talking about today.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I support what my right hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that the future market for financial services is huge and that jurisdictions with that level of transparency will attract vast amounts of business precisely for that reason?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first of my two points was about trying to tackle head-on the counter-arguments that are sometimes made by some territories.

On tackling and having zero tolerance towards corruption, in 2010, when I had responsibility for international development, we targeted funding specifically at the City of London police, which has expertise on pursuing and recovering stolen funds. We should do as much of that as possible.

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with a great deal of what my right hon. Friend says. Given that the majority of the economy of the British Virgin Islands, in particular, is in financial services and the islands have recently been completely devastated by hurricanes, is now the right time to be imposing on the islanders rather than working with them?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point in view of the humanitarian crisis that is afflicting the BVI, which are of course one of the most transparent of these havens. What I hope will be a temporary crisis in the BVI following the hurricane damage should not in any way detract from my argument that, in a defined, perhaps short, period of time, these open registers are essential.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the record? He said earlier that the UK led on the 0.7% target, but the UK was 40 or 45 years late. The 0.7% target was agreed in 1970, and the UK reached it decades behind the Scandinavians. I do not see that as leadership. Does he want to come back on that?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with such a narrow, partisan comment. Britain was the first G8 country to stand by its commitment to the poorest people in the world, and we are very proud that it was this Government who did it.

The highly respected Africa Progress Panel, in a recent study on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, made it clear that stolen funds and stolen taxes cost that country £1.5 billion, which is more than it spends on health and education. It is a deep irony that some of the world’s poorest people live on top of some of the richest real estate, as is clear in the DRC. Credible World Bank studies make it clear that the money stolen from the people of Africa through unpaid taxes or concealment dwarfs all the foreign direct investment and international development money that flows into Africa each year.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

We know a lot of that money ends up not in the overseas territories but in places like Dubai. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we also need to engage with other partners around the world, particularly in places like Dubai, where a lot of this money is to be found?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point; the key point on all of this is transparency and openness. Let all these matters be published in the way they are published through the open register in Britain. That is the way in which we make progress.

We look to the Government to advance this agenda, probably in the Finance Bill. We hope that those on the Treasury Bench will hear clearly the will of the House on this matter today and that progress will indeed now be made.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Finance Bill

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I think that the principle and the destination are pretty clear. We are moving in the direction of companies’ publishing this information, and I believe that the UK should be leading the way in working out a multilateral deal in which a number of countries impose essentially the same requirements. That, I think, would help to improve transparency and would provide a level playing field.

I do not think that the UK should be the last mover in this respect by any means. The United States seems to be some way away from moving in this direction, and I do not think that we should wait for the United States; I think we should be there before it. We should be able to deliver, especially given that such good progress is being made at European Union level. We remain members of the European Union, and there is appetite for this in other EU states. I have no doubt that, if no progress has been made in a year or two, the right hon. Member for Don Valley will come back and ask, “Why has this not happened?”, and in that event her case would be strengthened. However, I think that until we have given the deal a fair wind, it would be premature to act unilaterally.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The Minister has a perfectly justified and extremely good reputation for being sympathetic in driving this agenda forward. He will recall our discussions, both in opposition and back in 2010, about precisely the point that is addressed in the amendment. We all agree that companies should pay tax where their profits are earned.

The Minister knows as well as I do that some of the poorest people in the world live on top of some of the richest real estate, and that extraction taxes should be paid where those profits are earned. May I ask him to respond fully to the point that is being made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)? If he thinks that her amendment is defective in some way, will he commit the Government to looking at those defects and considering whether they can frame a clause that would address the first part of what she said, with which I understood him to say he agreed?

[Mr Gauke]

The Finance Bill is not the ideal way in which to address this issue fully. I make no criticism whatsoever of the right hon. Member for Don Valley, who has shown much ingenuity in managing to ensure that her amendment is in order, but this is essentially an issue for company law.

We are keen to implement public country-by-country reporting, and we want to do it on a multilateral basis. As I have said, if there was a lack of progress the Government would obviously want to return to the issue, given the concerns that I think are felt by Members in all parts of the House. However, I think that we are in a position to aim for what I am sure we all agree would be the best result: achieving our aims on a multilateral basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the fact that we went ahead with the diverted profits tax, although doing so was clearly consistent with the direction of the base erosion and profit shifting process. That tax also brought in significant revenue to the UK, which has been very helpful.

If we want to achieve greater transparency, as I believe we all do, it is right that we focus on driving forward international efforts on public country-by-country reporting. In order to get full information on foreign multinational entities’ global activities, multilateral agreement will be required to enable countries to introduce comprehensive rules with the widest possible scope. This will allow for a comprehensive multilateral approach that applies consistently across UK and foreign multinational entities. We must get this right so that, when it is introduced into UK law, it is effective and enforceable. We will continue to support and drive this multilateral change forward following the result of the referendum, and I share the determination of the Members supporting this amendment not to move at the pace of the slowest.

[Mr Mitchell]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way one more time, but I am conscious that I am taking up a lot of time in what is quite a short debate.

[Mr Mitchell]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way. I am sure we all agree with him that this should be done multilaterally—there is nothing between us on that—and I am sure that it will be helpful to his aim of being able to demonstrate strong support for this across the House of Commons when he is dealing with his international partners. I should like to make a suggestion, and I hope that it will be helpful. Would he consider asking his officials to draft a clause for public discussion that is not defective and that he could put to his colleagues multilaterally as a measure that they might wish to include in their parliamentary legislation?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that suggestion. Let me take it away, because there are a number of ways in which this could be done, and we would want to consider it. I believe that this debate will be helpful to our parliamentary and governmental colleagues in other jurisdictions in that it demonstrates our cross-party determination to make progress on this matter. We are committed to acting swiftly to implement international agreements, as we have done with the OECD BEPS recommendations on country-by-country reporting. We are committed to improving the transparency of multinational tax affairs, but we support an effective multilateral approach. At this time of increased uncertainty, a domestic measure of the sort being discussed today would, I fear, disadvantage UK business for the reason that I outlined. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the right hon. Member for Don Valley, but I hope she is satisfied with the assurances that I have provided today.

Clause 150 and schedule 20 create new civil penalties for those who have deliberately assisted taxpayers to evade UK inheritance tax, capital gains tax or income tax via offshore means. The bill introduces a financial penalty of up to 100% of the tax evaded and public naming in the most serious cases.

I want briefly to respond to Opposition amendments 19 and 20. The intentions of amendment 19 seem twofold. The first would ensure that it is considered enabling to act as an introducer. Schedule 20 already covers acting as an introducer, so that part of the amendment is unnecessary. The second aim is to set a test to check whether it objectively appears that the adviser should have known that the advice was likely to enable offshore tax evasion and is therefore an enabler. The test would introduce a great deal of uncertainty, meaning that it would be unclear how much due diligence should be completed.

Similarly, amendment 20 proposes a test that would ask whether the adviser wilfully or recklessly failed to make inquiries that a reasonable and honest person would have made. The courts generally recognise that knowledge includes so-called “blind-eye” knowledge—where a person has a firm suspicion about specific facts and deliberately decides not to find out more about them—meaning that an enabler cannot bury their head in the sand. If they have good reason to think that they are assisting evasion, failing to make proper inquiries will not help them and they will be penalised under the schedule as it currently stands. Given the restrictions and uncertainty that amendments 19 and 20 would introduce, I urge hon. Members to reject them.

Clauses 151 to 153 and schedules 21 and 22 strengthen the civil sanctions levied on offshore tax evaders. Clause 151 will increase the minimum penalties for deliberate offshore tax evasion to 30% of the tax due. The current minimum penalty is 20% and the maximum penalty will remain up to 300% of the tax due. The clause will require offshore evaders who are seeking to minimise or reduce their penalty to provide more information about their evasion and enabling activities in co-operation with HMRC.

Clause 152 removes the protection from being publicly named for deliberate offshore tax evasion unless an offshore evader comes forward to HMRC voluntarily and makes a full disclosure. In addition, clause 152 allows HMRC to name the individual who controls a company or entity that has participated in offshore tax evasion.

Clause 153 introduces a new asset-based penalty that will apply to the most serious cases of deliberate offshore tax evasion, where the tax loss exceeds £25,000, and will levy a penalty of up to 10% of the value of the asset connected to the evasion. Such assets could include physical property, intellectual property, shares and bank accounts. The asset-based penalty will be levied in addition to any other tax-geared penalties and interest due. Taken together, the measures will provide HMRC with a greater understanding of tax evasion while significantly increasing the penalties on tax evaders and those who help them.

New clauses 5 and 6 concern the reporting of a number of offshore tax evaders who have been named by HMRC and the number of asset-based penalties levied within a year of the passing of this Bill. The asset-based penalties are expected to apply from the 2016-17 tax year and the strengthened naming provisions are expected to apply from the 2017-18 tax year, with the first details published under this clause expected to be in 2019-20. As such, there would be no time for the activities covered by the amendments to have happened by the deadlines set for the Government to report on them.

Iraq Inquiry Report

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I do not think it is a question of “may be”; I think there will be the continued disruption of international affairs and the continued threat of terrorism. Europol’s assessment that there are 5,000 jihadists in Europe implies an arrival rate of 1,000 a year, and the rate is going up, not down. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

That brings us to a significant point. When the individual Prime Ministers involved in each of the decisions I mentioned made their decision, I am sure that in their own mind they were doing the right thing—they were trying to save lives, to save a civilisation or to intervene to prevent further terrorism. The trouble is that every single one of them made simplistic decisions, without detailed understanding. The complexity of the issues they were reaching into was beyond their knowledge. It is correcting, enhancing and improving that knowledge that the inquiry report is all about.

I am no pacifist, but I find myself horrified at the thoughtless, aggressive and unnecessary interventions by the west in areas that it does not understand. I did not like the Gaddafi regime; I did not like the Saddam Hussein regime; I do not particularly like the Bashar Assad regime, but ripping them out has led to something even worse. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is therefore absolutely right in his analysis, which demonstrates why this report and its speed of preparation are so important.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an immensely compelling point. Does he agree that when the report is published, which, I like him, hope will be as soon as possible, although the tendency in the British media will be to use it as a trial of the former Prime Minister—Blair guilty or innocent—the great gain of the report will be in showing how the whole mechanism of government worked in the run-up to the decision to go to war? A Prime Minister is not Dr Strangelove; this is about how the whole machine in Whitehall works.

[Mr Davis]

My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow him down his comparison between Dr Strangelove and past Prime Ministers, but he is right in one respect: the most important element of this is what we learn from our mistakes. However, there are also issues of accountability and closure, which I will return to in a moment.

Equitable Life

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

May I specify the types first, and then I will take interventions?

The first set of policyholders were those who took out their policies and had an annuity in place pre-1 September 1992. They were specifically excluded from the compensation scheme. I will come on to what happened to them subsequently. Secondly, there were the with-profits annuitants, who were given compensation of 100% of their relative loss—quite right too. Then there were the normal policyholders, who received an element of compensation. Unfortunately, when the legislation was set up, the public finances were in a scandalous state, and there was little money to allocate. I am delighted that the Treasury nevertheless chose to allocate sufficient funding to provide some £1.5 billion in compensation. There was £620 million to compensate the 37,000 with-profits annuitants, but, with the contingency fund of £100 million that was put in place, plus the costs of administering the scheme, that left only some £775 million to be spread between the 945,000 other policyholders, who therefore got only 22.4% of the compensation that they were due. As a result, those individuals have not been put back into the position that they should have been in had they not suffered the relative loss.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good and most important speech. I agree that the coalition Government deserve considerable credit for having tackled this early on in their term in office. Since, sadly, I cannot be here for the Minister’s speech, will my hon. Friend pursue the issue of the speed at which these payments are being made? Many of my constituents have had to wait a considerable length of time. I would be most grateful for his and the Minister’s reassurance that everything is being done to make these payments as rapidly as possible.

[Bob Blackman]

It is fair to say that the all-party group and EMAG have been on the backs of the Treasury Ministers responsible. The current Minister is in her place. Her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), was very helpful in making sure that the scheme was speeded up and that people got the compensation due to them. Most importantly, he decided that he would not close the scheme, which could have been done under the legislation, until we had traced every one of the policyholders due for compensation.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who speaks with passion for his constituents. Towards the end of his speech, he focused on the changes that the Chancellor has made to savings policy today. Those are significant reforms. We will obviously need to have a look at the details of them, but I suspect that although this Budget will be remembered for many things, it will be remembered above all for those important reforms to savings.

Fair’s fair; the Chancellor deserves considerable credit for today’s Budget. The facts seem to me to speak for themselves. He set a course some time ago, and he has stuck to it. He has taken an immense amount of incoming fire from his detractors for many of the decisions that he has made in the past four years, but the United Kingdom is in a far better position today than most other countries. He deserves credit for his constancy and the decisions that he has made.

I want to pick up on a number of things that the Chancellor mentioned. First, it is a small point, but he mentioned that Minouche Shafik was returning to be a deputy governor of the Bank of England. She was my first permanent secretary at the Department for International Development, and it is a wonderful piece of good news that she is returning and that the Chancellor has managed to onshore her. Many of us were extremely sorry when she went off to the International Monetary Fund and will be glad that she is coming back to take up her new position.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman pays tribute to the woman who, as I understand it, has been appointed to the Monetary Policy Committee. Does he agree that that appointment was purely on merit?

[Mr Mitchell]

I believe that Minouche Shafik is an absolutely outstanding public servant, and she has been appointed as a deputy governor of the Bank. I am sure the whole House will agree that it is an outstanding appointment.

The economic plan that has been introduced is right. We had to make those decisions, because the United Kingdom has racked up far too much debt. Siren voices effectively urge us to head back in the direction from which we have come, but it does not seem likely to me that the public will accept that. Today’s Budget enhances and underlines the difference between the Government and the Opposition, and in my view it will stand the test of time.

[Mr Redwood]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that despite all the efforts to control the debt, which we need to do, debt interest will still be £60 billion next year, which is more than the education budget?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, but can he imagine what it would be like today if the Opposition’s policies were being pursued?

I wish to make a point that the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), will not agree with, although I thought his speech was excellent in every other respect. The Government deserve huge praise for sticking to their plans on international development. The House will be aware that as a result of the all-party support for that policy, countless lives have been saved. Hundreds of thousands of children are alive today in the horn of Africa who would not have been but for British leadership on the issue.

Through the House strongly supporting the Government’s policy to vaccinate, the British contribution means that we will vaccinate a child every two seconds in the poor world, and every two minutes it will save a child’s life from the effects of diseases that none of our children die from today. As a result of reforms introduced by the Government, such as building up governance structure and ensuring that poor countries have the benefit of effective taxation, independent media and so forth, we should all be incredibly proud of the success of that policy. I am enormously proud to have served in a Government who stuck to their promises to the poorest people in the world, and who did not seek to balance the books on the backs of the poorest, either in Britain or overseas. That is also hugely in British interests—this is not just soft-hearted altruism—because it is not only aid from Britain, but aid and development for the benefit of Britain. It enhances the security and stability of our generation and of future generations, and it builds on the prosperity that our generation enjoys, and that future generations will enjoy to a greater degree as a result of those successful international development policies.

I also believe that the Chancellor was right to raise the threshold at which tax becomes payable, and—at a time of great austerity—to target help on those who earn the least. Of course the 40% level bites much earlier than we intended, but the austerity we have faced was harder and deeper, and inevitably those with a little more have had to pay a little more in those circumstances. I am clear, however, that the 40% band needs to be raised as soon as we can, and the drag of people into that band should be reversed once the economy can withstand it.

[Mr Newmark]

Most importantly, does my right hon. Friend agree that raising the personal allowance from £10,000 to £10,500 will save up to 3 million individuals up to £800 extra a year, which is good news for their pockets?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend, as always, is absolutely right, and bearing in mind the speech by the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), it is important to remember that in 2010 the richest 1% in Britain paid a quarter of all income taxes. Today the richest 1% are paying a third, and everyone in the House would agree that under these circumstances, that is correct.

The focus on getting younger people in particular into work is enormously important, and the raised thresholds clearly provide some help to that group. Reducing and ending employer’s national insurance contributions for those under 21 was an important measure made last year that I strongly support, just as I support the emphasis from across the House on increasing the minimum wage. All those things are extremely important.

We have also seen other ways of improving the situation for those entering the world of work. Last year, 510,000 apprenticeships started, while in 2010 there were only 230,000. That is enormously important in the part of the world I represent in the west midlands. Money has also been announced for new locally generated policies in eight core cities in Britain, which is right. However, we still have 1 million people in this country—children who have left school or students who have left university—who are not in education, employment or training, and we need an unremitting attack on that. It is quite wrong that young people who have left school or university should find themselves doing anything other than earning or learning. Although we have seen a significant decrease in the JSA claimant count, unemployment—particularly among young people—remains far too high in the west midlands, and we must continue that unremitting attack.

My final point was touched on in an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) and concerns the changes that the Government are making to welfare. I believe there are aspects of those changes that Members across the House can, and should, support. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have seen “Benefits Street” on Channel 4, which I think did a huge service to public broadcasting. Benefits Street is six miles from my constituency of Sutton Coldfield as the crow flies, but light years away in most other respects. What that programme showed in connection with welfare was the effect over many years of a very non-interventionist policy. It was almost as if benefits were paid, and once paid the recipients were forgotten.

The Government deserve considerable credit for helping those who cannot help themselves—for example by maintaining disability benefits throughout the stage of austerity—while also ensuring that we give help to those who can work and should do so. It is tough, difficult and hard to re-craft welfare policy, but in that Channel 4 programme we saw why it is essential to tackle the issue.

In conclusion, I believe that the welfare reforms, aspects of which command support throughout the country, could be one of the coalition Government’s finest achievements during their term in office. I shall end where I started by saying that the Chancellor and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench deserve considerable credit for crafting this Budget, which tackles needs at this stage of the economic cycle. I have no doubt whatsoever that his own share price will be rising, and rightly so.