Budget Resolutions
Debate between Bim Afolami and Peter Dowd(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
It is a pleasure to close these three days of debate on the Government’s spring Budget. Before I get on to more contentious points, I will start on some common ground.
We all know that the last few years have been tough for our country. We all know that this Government have spent more than £400 billion on protecting lives and livelihoods after covid. We all know that Putin’s war in Ukraine sent energy prices to unprecedented highs, and that this has had a huge impact on our economy.
Since 2023 this Government have principally worked to three economic priorities: halving inflation, growing the economy and reducing the national debt. We have made good progress on each of those priorities. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should wait for it. Inflation has more than halved, going from 11% to 4%. Our economy is expected to grow faster than many of our major European neighbours and partners over the medium term. The IMF predicts that over the coming four years we will be the third quickest growing economy in the G7. The OBR has confirmed that national debt is on track to fall in line with our fiscal rules.
Members across the House may say, “A lot done; a lot more to do”, but this prudent and responsible Budget takes us one step closer to tackling the inflation that has harmed the economy, to dealing with the low growth and poor productivity that has hampered us, and towards a brighter future. We have already had much success. That is why we are able to afford to cut national insurance for 29 million people. We will responsibly go further than that, as long as the country can afford it.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Asked last week about the Government’s commitment to abolish national insurance contributions, the Minister said
“we’d like to continue along that track”—
more of a cul-de-sac, in my humble opinion—but today the Minister has been silent on that plan for a huge £46 billion unfunded tax commitment. Will the Minister tell us if it is still the Prime Minister’s plan to resurrect the Trussonomics mini-Budget package of last year?
Bim Afolami
It is not our plan to resurrect anything from the mini-Budget. We have our plan and we set it out in our Budget.
As the son of a doctor and a pharmacist, as many of us are on the Government Benches, I am mindful that any good doctor will say that in order for the medicine to work, one has to complete the course and stick to the plan. This Budget sticks to the plan we set out in 2023 and has three key objectives: to reward work, to grow the economy and to improve productivity. Before I get on to those points, I will address some of the remarks made by hon. Members during the debate.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) made a point about some of the most vulnerable in our country and their access to credit. I commend her long-standing support for her constituents, including the most vulnerable. We are extending the household support fund, as she will know, and we are making it easier to access the debt relief order. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) welcomed the decision to extend the household support fund. In response to his question about making the fund permanent, that is a decision for the next fiscal event, whenever that will be.
I say to Members of all parties who are concerned for the most vulnerable that this is a Budget and a Government for them. Since 2010, the real income—the take-home pay—of those working full time on the national living wage is 35% greater than it was in 2010. On rewarding work, thanks to the actions that this Government have already taken, falling inflation means that wages in real terms are on the up, even while unemployment is low. In response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), real household incomes overall have increased by 8% since 2010. But we all know that we can go further. The simplest and most effective way to do so is by reducing people’s taxes and getting rid of the double taxation on work, which means reducing national insurance.
I was listening carefully to the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is a man I rather like. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I rather admire him. We came to the House at the same time. We are practically the same age—he is about five months younger than me, but let us not go into that. But I was very surprised to hear him say—he can intervene on me if this is not correct—that it was “morally abhorrent” to cut national insurance.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Bim Afolami and Peter Dowd(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bim Afolami
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am studying those policies carefully. I am concerned about certain aspects of what is proposed, and I will be discussing the matter with the PRA and the FCA to make sure that we have sensible policies on this matter.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Bim Afolami
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Indeed, the Chancellor announced at the autumn statement last year that, over the next 12 months, the Government will consider selling shares in NatWest. That is all subject to value-for-money concerns and other matters, as he will appreciate, and it is market sensitive. Of course value for money will be at the heart of any consideration of the sale of shares, and the House will be kept fully informed over the coming weeks and months.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (First sitting)
Debate between Bim Afolami and Peter Dowd(5 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Dowd
In speaking to amendment 8, I will also speak to amendments 9, 10 and 11, each of which we will press to a vote.
Clause 2 enacts the continued charging of corporation tax. As the explanatory note says, the clause
“charges corporation tax for the financial year beginning 1 April 2020 ...Parliament charges CT for each financial year. This clause charges CT for the financial year beginning 1 April 2020. The rate of CT for the financial year 2020 was set at 17% in Finance Act 2016 Part 2 section 46.”
As I indicated earlier, it is vital to hold the Government to account on the matter of their treatment of corporation tax. The Government have offered huge tax breaks to big business even during their continued programme of austerity, which only two weeks ago the special rapporteur described as causing “misery”. It is important to set that context in relation to our amendments. The Government have slashed—that is the word—the amount of corporation tax paid, with a commitment to continue to cut big company taxes further. By 2020, 11% will have been cut from the main rate.
The main rate of corporation tax applies to companies with profits over £300,000—these are not small family businesses, but big corporations of the sort that we have all come to know, because they play a significant part in our economy. There is no criticism of that, but there is a balance to be drawn.
The main rate started at 28% in April 2010. It was reduced by the former Chancellor to 26% in April 2011 and then was reduced again to 24% in 2012 and 23% in 2013, before reaching 20% in 2015. It was cut further, to 19%, in 2017 with a view to reaching 17% by 2020. As of last year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that, compared with 2010, those cuts were denying the country £16.5 billion a year in tax revenue. That will increase if the Government stay in power long enough to push the rate down to 17% by 2020.
The Government have already been criticised by tax experts about the matter, which to some extent takes us back to our debate about the ability to tease out the issues. For example, Bill Dodwell, the former head of tax policy at Deloitte—not a company considered to be particularly socialist—said:
“Nobody seems to welcome the cut to 17 per cent.”
The British Chambers of Commerce has called for a pause to the corporation tax giveaways. When corporations’ own trade associations are making that point, it indicates that something might not be quite right. If it is important that we are all in this together, we must all be in it together on this matter too, and corporations should not be outside that.
We seek to take stock of the Government’s policy, which many people describe as corporate welfare, in the context of eight painful years of austerity for some of the poorest in our society and following numerous criticisms of the corporation tax policy by those who will benefit from it. Will the Minister help us to understand the Government’s position by addressing those criticisms in turn? Perhaps the Government might wish to introduce a review of corporation tax changes since 2010, so that we can get to the bottom of this important matter. After all, in eight years under the Government, corporation tax giveaways are likely to amount to hundreds of billions of pounds, while the number of people in poverty has risen to 14 million. A review of the matter would also help us to compare the Government’s actions with Labour party policy, which is to reverse the cuts and invest the money elsewhere.
Let us have a review to tease out the issues, because £16.5 billion works out at more than £25.5 million per constituency in the UK. The combined total cut from the constituencies of Conservative members of this Committee amounts to £228 million; it is important that the figures are put in context, because that translates to a lot of schools and hospitals that they are prepared to sacrifice.
Along with the important matter of what has happened to corporation tax since 2010, we must also draw a link between the Government’s cuts to corporation tax and their wider programme. In our view, there has been economic mismanagement, but we are not necessarily here today to talk about that.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman asserts figures such as £16.5 billion, but does he accept that the tax rate has a dynamic effect on the amount generated for the Exchequer? It is all very well to cite a number as a static figure and say, “Actually, Labour party policy will double the amount we get,” but does he accept that there is a relationship between the rate and the amount that the Exchequer generates because of increased economic growth?
Peter Dowd
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I will address later in my remarks, and which we can tease out across the Committee if we want.
For Members who do not know, labour productivity is calculated by dividing output by labour input. Output refers to gross value added, which is an estimate of the volume of goods and services by an industry, and in aggregate for the UK as a whole. Labour inputs are measured in terms of workers, jobs—“productivity jobs”—and hours worked, or “productivity hours”.
The cuts to corporation tax have done nothing to improve our productivity. The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden may wish to listen to that point, so I will repeat it: the cuts to corporation tax have done nothing to improve our productivity. That strikes at the heart of the Government’s failure on the issue. In fact, the economic statistics centre of excellence and the centre for macroeconomics at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research published a study this year of Britain’s very poor productivity. That brings us to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, because one would assume that as a result of the tax cuts, more would be invested and productivity would rise—but that has not happened. The Government have argued that those corporations now receiving significant sums in tax cuts would invest in our economy and drive their business models forward, thus increasing UK productivity. Unfortunately, the 2018 paper shows that the billions of pounds of giveaways have not had a positive productivity effect. To deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, that paper says:
“Average annual…productivity growth was 2.5 percentage points lower during the period 2011-2015 than in the decade before the financial crisis…in 2007. We find that several years on from the financial crisis stagnation remains widespread across detailed industry divisions, pointing to economy-wide explanations for the puzzle. With some exceptions, labour productivity…lost…momentum in those industries that experienced strong growth before the crisis. Three fifths of the gap is accounted for by a few industries that together account for less than one fifth of market sector value added. In terms of why we observe continued stagnation, we find that capital shallowing has become increasingly important in explaining the labour productivity growth gap in service sectors, as the buoyancy of the UK labour market has not been sufficiently matched by investment…The collapse in labour productivity growth has been more pronounced in the UK than elsewhere”
notwithstanding those major cuts in corporation tax.
Peter Dowd
I do not want to introduce Gilbert and Sullivan, but the point is that it is a topsy-turvy world where cash for corporations equals productivity, when it does not, and cuts to welfare equal productivity, when they do not. It is not as simple as that and I am afraid that the Government’s rather one-dimensional approach does not work. That report shows that the billions handed to those big companies by the Government have not had the required effect on business investment to drive up productivity. The facts are there for everybody to see. No doubt, if we had had some experts here, we could have teased that out a bit more.
Bim Afolami
The hon. Gentleman has focused on domestic business investment, but would he not accept that having an attractive corporation tax regime and providing a business-friendly climate also helps with foreign direct investment? Britain is still a world leader in that.
Peter Dowd
Yes, but there is not necessarily a causal link there. The reality is—[Interruption.] Let me tease that out. The evidence does not suggest that, as I have tried to point out. The German economy is 35% more productive, because investment in it is significantly better than investment in this country’s economy. We are having a debate at the moment about the question of uncertainty in relation to Brexit, which is probably having a more significant effect than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The bottom line is that the idea that cutting corporation tax per se will lead to growth in the economy has not proven to be the case. The economy is still flatlining, despite those cuts to corporation tax. The best part of half a billion pounds is still sitting in corporate bank accounts not being invested, despite corporate tax cuts.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes an important point: we have to have a balance. The massive cuts in corporation tax—sequentially, over several years—have not had the required effect. If they did, there is an argument to be had, but they have not. There does not appear to be any evidence that that is the case, so it begs the question why. If the Government are trying to make a rational case for it, they have singularly failed and it is time to have another look.
The Government once had a plan to tackle, for example, productivity in 2016 when they tried to maintain that there was an agenda beyond austerity, but that has not been the case. Sadly, the plan was not to reverse the corporation tax cuts and invest in the economy, but simply to push on. As a result, the plan was roundly criticised. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said
“we question whether the document has sufficient focus and clear, measurable objectives to be called a ‘plan’. This broad and expansive document represents more of an assortment of largely existing policies collected together in one place than a new plan for ambitious productivity growth.”
That plan was the best attempt so far and it has singularly failed. That is why we will continue to press the Government on the true cost of corporate giveaways both in terms of the tax forgone and their effectiveness.
Amendment 8 requires a review of the effects of corporation tax receipts of multinational companies compared with their UK-based revenue. That is a perfectly reasonable approach in the round—it is not just one-dimensional. The Financial Times reported last year that multinational companies avoided paying as much as £5.8 billion tax in 2016 by booking profits in overseas entities. It reported that that represented almost a quarter of the tax underpaid by large corporations last year. In addition to an apparent avoidance of tax, they also get a tax reduction. It is a great life if you can get it: do not pay tax and get rewarded with another tax cut. If only we could all do that, although I suspect none of us would want to.
Sadly, the situation does not seem to have improved under the Government’s plans, despite the warning signs. The Times reported two weeks ago that HMRC is now chasing £28 billion in unpaid taxes from multinationals. The Government’s response was to give them some more. It is a bizarre approach when they owe £28 billion, or when HMRC is chasing £28 billion. I assume colleagues in HMRC do not simply go around chasing £28 billion for the fun of it, and instead do it because there is a requirement and we need the tax, and importantly because companies should pay their fair share. That represents a 50% increase in avoidance over four years. While the Government give corporations tax cuts, the corporations appear to say, “Thank you very much; we will carry on doing what we usually do and avoid our taxes.”
The problem stems from transfer pricing, which refers to the charges made between different parts of a multinational business for goods, services or intangible assets, including intellectual property, for example. Tax rules provide that transactions between connected parties should be taxed as if they were on arm’s length terms. In recent years, multinationals have been accused of arranging their transfer pricing to minimise their tax liabilities in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, which accounts for billions of missing tax in the UK.
The Conservative party not only wants to give the wealthiest a tax break but it does not seem too bothered if they give it to others such as corporations that do not necessarily need it. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East said, that rule applies only to powerful interests and not to the working single mother who pays in full every single month.
Bim Afolami
The hon. Gentleman uses the word “corporations” pejoratively and then mentions the hard-working single mother. Does he accept that the hard-working single mother might also run a small business? Why did the Labour manifesto commit to increasing corporation tax on small businesses as well as on multinationals?
Peter Dowd
I started my comments by welcoming the role that corporations play in our economy. My use of the word “corporations” was not in any sense pejorative. I have said nothing “pejorative” about corporations. I may have talked pejoratively about those corporations that avoid their tax and I think most other people would, too. Those corporations have a responsibility, and not just legally, to pay tax. I am not suggesting they are evading tax in that sense, but morally they are part of our community. They are part of one of the most stable countries in the world, with a rule of law next—[Interruption.] I am absolutely shocked that the hon. Gentleman is laughing at my assertion that we have one of the best processes for the rule of law in this country. I am sure he did not mean to laugh when I was praising the British constitution—I accept that he did not really mean it.
At the end of the day, the bottom line is that I have not at any time been pejorative, and nor would I wish to be pejorative, about corporations that play their part in society, that pay their taxes, that treat their workers properly and that treat their customers as their first port of call. I would not be pejorative about those corporations, but I will not stop criticising corporations that do not pay their fair share of tax.
To get back to the point, that is why the Government appear to be winding down the diverted profits tax rather than ramping up the pressure on companies that do not pay their way. The review demanded by amendment 8 would strike at the heart of the problem. For too long, the Government have sat idly by and watched the UK being fleeced by many big companies and the public are saying that enough is enough.
On amendment 9, the Government’s blind spot in respect of companies paying their share extends in particular to technology companies. It was reported in The Guardian this year that Amazon had halved its corporation tax despite posting record profits. The article speaks directly to the amendment by saying:
“The company, which has been locked in a race with Apple and Alphabet to be the world’s first trillion-dollar business, revealed that pre-tax profits at its UK business tripled from £24m in 2016 to £72m last year.
The figures were reported by Amazon UK Services, the company’s warehouse and logistics operation that employs more than two-thirds of its 27,000-plus UK workforce, in its annual financial filing to Companies House.
The company almost halved its declared UK corporation tax bill from £7.4m in 2016 to £4.5m last year. It received a tax credit of £1.3m from the UK authorities in 2016, and last year paid £1.7m tax on its profits.”
I do not have the evidence to hand, because time does not permit me to go into all the details, but it would be interesting to know how many of those 27,000 people are on tax credits themselves because the pay they get from that company is pretty low. There is an unacceptable triple-whammy for taxpayers. No. 1 is that some of those companies’ employees get tax credits because they do not get paid enough; No. 2 is that the companies are getting a corporation tax cut; and No. 3 is that they avoid paying their taxes where they can.
Will the Minister guarantee that Amazon will pay a full and reasonable share of tax on its operations next year? I suspect that he is not likely to commit to that suggestion even if he wanted to. What about other companies? Google paid only £50 million last year, despite total sales of £5.7 billion, which is worth repeating. Meanwhile, Facebook paid only £15.8 million in corporation tax, despite collecting a record £1.3 billion in sales. Its accounts show that while it increased its UK income by more than 50% in 2017, its pre-tax profits increased by only 6% to £62.7 million. The Silicon valley-based company’s UK taxable profits were reduced by a £444 million charge for unexplained “administrative expenses”, which is scandalous.
The Chancellor said that he would introduce a digital services tax in response to that flagrant attempt to undermine our tax base. Oddly, though, the tax seemed to bring in only £5 million in the first year and £275 million in the second. Perhaps the Financial Secretary could tell us where the rest is. That seems a pretty pathetic attempt to restore a level playing field in our tax system—the digital services tax is a drop in the ocean. What estimate has the Minister made of the total corporation tax lost to HMRC through avoidance by technology companies? What steps has he taken to work with other nations to deliver a comprehensive response? How many meetings has he had with the European Union since the Budget?
As the Minister knows, the European Union’s approach is much more comprehensive. A Commission press release set out its approach to digital taxation—it is therefore directly relevant to amendment 9. It demonstrates that the EU’s plans are far more developed than the UK’s. It is therefore important that we listen to them. The press release states:
“The Commission has proposed new rules to ensure that digital business activities are taxed in a fair and growth-friendly way in the EU. The measures would make the EU a global leader in designing tax laws fit for the modern economy and the digital age”,
which is what amendment 9 seeks to do. It continues:
“The recent boom in digital businesses, such as social media companies, collaborative platforms and online content providers, has made a great contribution to economic growth in the EU. But current tax rules were not designed to cater for those companies that are global, virtual or have little or no physical presence. The change has been dramatic: 9 of the world’s top 20 companies by market capitalisation are now digital, compared to 1 in 20 ten years ago. The challenge is to make the most of this trend, while ensuring that digital companies also contribute their fair share of tax. If not, there is a real risk to Member State public revenues: digital companies currently have an average effective tax rate half that of the traditional economy in the EU…Today’s proposals come as Member States seek permanent and lasting solutions to ensure a fair share of tax revenues from online activities”
as urgently as possible. Like the European Union, we are seeking to create an initiative
“to reform corporate tax rules so that profits are registered and taxed where businesses have significant interaction with users through digital channels. This forms the Commission’s preferred long-term solution.”
I would like the Government to consider a number of European Union proposals as part of the review, including an interim tax on certain revenue from digital tax activities. The Government could take that issue into account as part of the review, too. I hope they will look at it as well.
The Economy
Debate between Bim Afolami and Peter Dowd(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bim Afolami
I want to take the hon. Gentleman up on his point about personal debt levels. Does he agree that it is because this Government’s fiscal management has been so sensible—and recognised as such by the international markets—that interest rates have been kept low? This means that personal debt repayments are now lower on average than they were when the Labour party left office.
Peter Dowd
We lost our triple A rating under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, so I do not think he has any room to point the finger at anyone.
While stressed-out doctors and teachers go to work every day, the Government duck responsibility and parliamentary scrutiny at every opportunity. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury might call these hard-working people “blobs”, but every day they run our health service and educate our children. Rather than spending her time attacking workers and the professional classes, the blob snob Chief Secretary should instead focus her attention on lifting the public sector pay right across the board and stepping up and taking action on our schools.
Peter Dowd
Yes, and quite frankly, what the Government tend to do in these situations is stick their fingers in their ears. They do not want to hear these facts.
I know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been much more active, particularly on our trade deficit in regard to dairy products and the interests of cheesemakers. This has led her to extol the virtues of “unfeta-ed” markets on so many occasions that I have begun to feel that I “camembert” it any more. It has become increasingly clear that the Government’s economic policy has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. But there is a serious point here. During her seemingly endless public interventions, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury can only focus on a single theme. She has brought it back to us today, and I thank her for that. It is her belief that the state should continue to recede under permanent austerity. Schools, hospitals, social care, childcare, road maintenance, pollution standards and local government services more generally are all under the cosh, while her beloved market forces create new vape shops on every corner, and more misery.
Bim Afolami
To be more accurate, was not the Chief Secretary to the Treasury actually talking about a percentage of the total GDP of the state, and not the quantum amount? The heart of her argument was that if we continue to grow the economy as we are doing, we will have much more money for our public services. That was the real core of the point she was making.
Peter Dowd
Look, the reality is that the economy is not growing to the level it should be, because this Government are not investing in it. Actually, something like 50% of the growth in the economy is going to the most well-off 10%, and that is not reasonable. It is not fair. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear those figures in mind. It is not simply a question of the growth in the economy; it is a question of where that growth goes and whether it is being shared out reasonably.
Peter Dowd
I know; I was busy here. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) makes a point about exports, but we have seen the biggest devaluation in the pound for as long as anyone can remember, and I suspect that that has had something to do with it. It is hardly down to the policies of the Government; it is an unexpected consequence.
Let us move on to something released today. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services yet again reports huge pressures on police forces, with emergency services responding not in seconds, minutes or even hours, but days. The “golden hour” is being stretched to up to a week—there is an achievement by this Government from a strong economy! It comes in the wake of the UK Statistics Authority having to correct the Prime Minister’s imaginative—not a word that we often use in association with the Prime Minister—use of police funding figures. I cannot see much cause to celebrate the current state of the economy after eight years of Tory austerity.
Britain continues to have astonishingly low levels of productivity compared with other G7 countries, which is a direct result of this Government’s failure to invest productively and proactively in the economy. Bizarrely, however, the Chief Secretary wants to celebrate—she did it again today—the poorly paid, precarious labour market that has fostered unproductive business models, which rely on exploitation instead of innovation and investment. For example, much of her Policy Exchange speech was spent singing the praises of Uber, as she did again today, but Uber’s labour practices and poor track record on safety have made it the subject of an investigation by Transport for London. She sits in awe of some large corporations that use every opportunity to dodge their taxes. Yesterday, we heard about Facebook misusing people’s personal data for profit. Is that the sort of country we want to live in? Of course it is not. Is that the sort of company that the Chief Secretary thinks is marvellous, wonderful and a model?
The Labour party embraces the opportunities of a fourth industrial revolution that empowers working people to take control of their own lives, yet the Conservative party wants to return to the practices of the first industrial revolution, when the world was dominated by the interests of the few. It is strange that the Chief Secretary talks about freedoms while advocating a society in which the broad mass of citizens are denied basic rights. For example, how has the slashing of public services, while tax breaks are being handed to big corporations, made us freer? It has only trapped people in poverty and poor health.
Bim Afolami
The hon. Gentleman’s speech illustrates the big dividing line between the two sides of the House. The Chief Secretary is concerned with people and consumers having access to high-quality, well-paying jobs and high-quality public services; the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman are obsessed with vested interests and the producers, many of which are not providing a good service to the British people.
Peter Dowd
Things are not going very well on that basis, but the bottom line is that that is the Tories’ one-dimensional approach to things. Producers and consumers often interact. The person who works in the factory is a consumer and a producer. This goes to the heart of why the Tories just do not get it. They are the one-dimensional party.
The Government’s entire economic strategy has been the transfer of private losses on to the public sector through austerity, using the state to pay for the losses built up by their donors. In other words, the Chief Secretary’s free, lightly regulated markets have ended up costing us all a good deal, and she now wants to expand that even further at greater expense to us all. Her Government’s economic strategy has left us buckling under huge national debt, with public services in crisis. It has left us with NHS trusts ending this financial year with a £1 billion deficit, and we have seen capital transfer to revenue for about the past four years, which is hardly the sign of a strong economy.
Finance Bill
Debate between Bim Afolami and Peter Dowd(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bim Afolami
I know that is a controversial view that many have. In particular, I listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) from the Opposition Front Bench.
Bim Afolami
I am. The hon. Gentleman made some interesting remarks, but I am going to pick him up on one phrase, which we should think about and bear in mind as we look not only at the implications of new clause 1 but at the Bill as a whole. He said that the British public are no fools. As I listened to him expound on that, I thought to myself, “The British public in the public gallery and the many millions undoubtedly watching the debate at this moment are no fools and will realise that this Conservative Government, since 2010, have brought in more than £160 billion-worth of anti-avoidance and tax evasion measures.” The British public are no fools. They will realise that the Conservative Government, since 2010. have reduced the tax gap—the gap between what should be collected in tax and what actually is collected—to 6.5%, the lowest that has been recorded. The British public are no fools and will see that this Government, a Conservative Government, will abolish permanent non-dom status for the first time. Those are the practical achievements that the Bill helps to build on.
On the precise nature of new clause 1, I can do no better than agree with my dear and honourable Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who suggested entirely accurately that the timing of such a review may cause disruption. It may be a significant disincentive and difficult from a business perspective because of the Brexit negotiations and the situation at that time. It is also important for us, whatever party we represent, to recognise that this Government are making the case for a sustainable fiscal policy that makes sense in the modern world.
We have heard from many Members on both sides of the House about the international context in which we operate. We are in a smaller world; we all know the impact that technology and ease of travel are having on every aspect of life. Bearing that international context in mind, things are more competitive. We cannot rest on our laurels.