EU Exit Preparations: Ferry Contracts

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

I do not represent the tunnel, which is in Folkestone and Hythe; I represent Dover. However, I have been keen to press the Secretary of State to ensure that Dover receives similar investment and that it does not lose out, and I look forward to his confirmation that that will be the case.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Away from the party games, we all know that the problems in the British transport system are so intractable that any Secretary of State would face them. Many Conservative Members think that if the rest of the Cabinet had listened to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary two years ago and started no-deal planning at the time, not only would the EU have taken us seriously and offered a much better deal, but we would not have made the mistakes that have clearly been made. It is not the Transport Secretary’s fault.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for making exactly the point that I am coming to. I set out how we needed to invest to be ready on day one, deal or no deal; as I argued at the time, to get the best negotiation, we needed to be able to get up and walk away from the table. I also set out detailed legal reasons why we did not owe any of the divorce bill—another point that was important to our negotiation.

The Government as a whole—the Cabinet—decided not to spend money at that time. The Cabinet decided not to invest at that time. The Cabinet decided not to take forward contingency planning at a substantial level until after the Chequers discussions. To visit that on the Secretary of State would not be fair, right or proper.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. For the guidance of the Committee, I would like to get the Minister in by 6.45, so if hon. Members could try and speak for not much more than five or six minutes, that would be a great help.

[Charlie Elphicke]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who speaks to the Committee with great experience, but on this occasion I cannot agree with him. I support my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the wording of his amendment:

“During a regulated period no controlled expenditure is to be incurred by any third party that is in receipt of public funds”.

There has for some time been a problem with using public money to get involved in our political system, and that has caused me considerable concern. The Public Administration Committee looks at charities, what they do and how they act and operate. The findings of some of our investigations are a matter of grave concern. There has been a tremendous change over the past 15 to 20 years in the third sector and how it operates, which makes my hon. Friend’s amendment relevant, but also means that clause 27 and the Bill in general should be brought to this Bill Committee.

In the past 15 years the state funding of charities in Britain has increased significantly, while restrictions on political lobbying by charities have been substantially relaxed. Some 27,000 charities are now dependent on the Government for more than 75% of their income and the voluntary sector receives more money from the state than it does in voluntary donations. That fact is pointed out by the Institute of Economic Affairs in its report entitled “Sock Puppets”. It is important for us to be aware of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. I know that Mr Elphicke will be thinking carefully of other people, so he might like to bring his remarks to a conclusion quite soon.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Thank you, Sir Edward. I will not detain the Committee for too much longer. I wish to make a few more brief points.

[The Temporary Chair]

Well, they must be very brief.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My particular concern about the state funding of charities and outsourcing of services is that they should not be in a position to use that money to lobby for more Government funds. The third sector’s increasing reliance on Government largesse has provoked lots of discussion and caused considerable concern. Critics have accused Governments of using statutory funding to silence belligerent charities or to politicise good causes.

“Guido Fawkes” says:

“A charity that relies in the main part on taxes is no more a charity than”

a lady of the night

“is your girlfriend.”

On the serious issue of lobbying for more money, we should be cautious and ensure that it is not misspent and that the regulation of lobbying should catch up with the fact that the third sector has changed dramatically in recent years and, indeed, that the historic restrictions on political campaigning and political involvement by charities, on which the Charity Commission used to be very firm, have been relaxed.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Edward Leigh

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Everything that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) says would be fair enough if what this Government were doing were any different from what a Labour Government would have been doing at precisely this time. The public sometimes lose track of the reality of the situation that we are in. We politicians talk in terms of billions or—perhaps soon—trillions of pounds, but a constituent put it to me like this, offering a better way of describing our situation. It is as if we were somebody who had an income of £50,000, who had knocked up a credit card debt of another £50,000, and who had promised to repay £4,000 of it but was actually repaying only £2,000. We are in a dire financial situation. I suggest that whoever were in government at this time would be doing much the same. In fact, I suggest that what the Government are doing is the bare minimum necessary to maintain market confidence.

We have had a lot of debate about the ratings agency, and I am sure that the Labour party is gearing up to tease the Government if there is any decline in our rating score, yet if we did anything less than what we are doing to address this deficit, we would be in dire trouble with the markets, and I have no doubt that interest rates would eventually have to rise, with all the consequences we know about for businesses and for ordinary mortgage payers. I therefore do not accept this apocalyptic view of the Government’s proposals. As I say, the Government are doing the bare minimum necessary to maintain market confidence.

I do not accept either the argument put forward by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that there is some sort of right-wing plot—that we have been waiting for years for this crisis in order to take a stab at Keynesian politics and that, really, all we are interested in is a slash and burn of the public services. It is hardly a slash and burn, given the sort of figures we are talking about. In fact, Government spending is as high as it has ever been. All we are doing is trying to get to some sort of grip with the deficit.

Personally, I have always argued that the economy would benefit from deregulation and from simplification particularly of the tax system, leaving aside the total size of the public sector. I would have thought that Members on both sides of the House could accept that what is needed is simplification. How, then, are we going to get it?

I spoke in the Budget debate at about 6 o’clock. Such is the complexity of the modern Budget process that it is difficult for people to get a handle on what is going on as it is being enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was teased by one of the Whips because, apparently, precisely as I stood to say that it was a courageous Budget, coincidentally all the press started turning against the Government—and it has been pretty bad ever since. I say that it is courageous because the Chancellor has started to take some difficult decisions to simplify the tax system. We have heard a good speech about charitable giving. So much of the so-called bad publicity that the Government have attracted over the Easter break—whether it be over the so-called granny tax or charitable giving or child benefit or all the other problematic areas—shows that the Chancellor is beginning to try to address these appallingly difficult structural problems.

There has been a lot of talk about the Titanic this week—nobody should worry, as I am not going to repeat the tired old cliché about deck chairs—and I think that the whole structure of the ship is wrong when it comes to the tax system. The ship is unbelievably badly built, and it is gradually sinking under us. What I have found in listening to 28 successive Budgets in this Chamber is that the tax system has become progressively more complex. It was possible 25, 30 or 35 years ago for a Chancellor to come across as providing a reasonably coherent lecture in his Budget statement—we all used to get very excited because tax on whisky or the basic rate of tax was going to go up or down by 1p—but such levels of complexity have been loaded on to the whole tax process that it has become virtually impossible for any Chancellor to come out on Budget day with any coherent proposal that is not in succeeding days unpicked and trashed because of the hundreds of pages of small print. If the structure is fundamentally flawed—it is, I think, the longest tax code in the world apart from India, and one of the most complex in the world—it is virtually impossible for any Chancellor to get a grip on it. I have never made any secret of my personal belief that we have to be prepared to be radical. We cannot just try to improve the structure; we have to go back to first steps and argue what we really believe in. What I really believe in is a much flatter—ideally, flat—rate of tax.

I have recently read an excellent book written by one of our colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), about the 19th century statesman John Bright. He was wholly uninterested in politics, but was a substantial statesman, who continually argued in terms of retrenchment, sound public services and a sound financial system. He said:

“Better teach the people something good for the future than resign oneself to work institutions already in existence”.

I suspect that too many politicians—I do not blame those on the Treasury Bench, as I know what they are paid to do—are fundamentally doing what John Bright did not want to do, which is resign themselves to work institutions already in existence. I think that the purpose of politics, certainly for those on the Back Benches, is to try as John Bright said to try to teach the people something good for the future.

I believe that this idea of a much simplified tax system or a flatter and ultimately a flat rate of tax, which has always been dismissed as an idea of the radical right, is of increasing interest to those on the left. Why? We have heard a great deal about tax avoidance, and the more complex the tax system, the easier it is to avoid it. Every time we try to deal with the problem, we create more loopholes and more difficulties, making it easier for the rich to avoid paying tax. With a much flatter—ideally, flat—rate of taxes, there is no possibility for avoidance. The TUC claims—I am sure it is right; it is not known to be a particularly right-wing organisation—that tax avoidance results in a loss to the Treasury of £13 billion a year from individuals and £12 billion a year from corporations.

To make another left-wing point, some politicians have recently had a bad press; they have been standing for various public offices or arriving in this House with good incomes outside politics, but instead of paying tax like the rest of us at the basic and then higher rates, they have put their money into private companies in order to pay much lower rates. Some politicians in America who have huge incomes, including some bidding to become President, have had a very bad press, as we found that they paid minimal rates of taxation. Why is this? It is because the tax codes in both countries are so complex that the rich and the powerful can always avoid paying tax. They cannot do that, however, under a much simplified tax system.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend not think that politicians should give a lead? It is not just Ken Livingstone who has been egregiously avoiding paying tax. It is clear from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that some Labour Members have been routing their funds into private service companies. Should that not be stopped; should not politicians set an example?

[Mr Leigh]

I do not want to ruin my argument and I do not want to lose any support that I might have from my friends on the Opposition Benches by recommending a tax on particular Labour politicians. The trouble is that there is always a huge temptation for anyone with a high income—a politician, an entertainer or a business man—to listen to the advice provided by chartered accountants. They will say, quite rightly, “Oh dear, why is a successful chap like you”—a successful chap like, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who doubtless has a very large income—“paying all this tax, when you could be setting up a small company and paying about 11%?”

In the past I have argued for a much flatter, ideally flat, rate of tax throughout earned income, but now I will be even more radical, and suggest that there is an increasing case for transposing that to small company income. I am not privileged to serve on the Treasury Bench, and I do not have teams of civil servants to advise me. I constantly come up with ideas such as this during Finance Bill debates, and I can produce figures, but I do not know whether they are correct. I have been told that a flat-rate tax of 22% with a £15,000 allowance would result in a reduction of £63 billion in tax revenue in the first year. Although I believe that the extraordinary savings that would be made through the ending of tax avoidance might well enable us to claw that back, there is no point in my simply going to the Library and then coming up with figures.

I see that the Minister is busily scribbling down every one of my pearls of wisdom at this precise moment. It would be really nice if, rather than just saying at 10 or 10.30 tonight “I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough for making such an interesting speech”, he wrote to me in the next week or two, when he has the necessary leisure, telling me—on the basis of the Treasury model—how much of the cost of avoidance could be saved through the adoption of a much flatter, or ideally a flat, rate of taxation, under which it would increasingly not be worth people’s while to try to shift their income from one pot to another. Is that, in fact, such a radical idea? Has it been tried out anywhere else? Well, of course it has.

As I have said, the size of the UK tax code has more than doubled since 1997. The present situation is absurd. The Chancellor is doing his best, but whereas 15% of taxpayers will pay a higher rate in 2012, only 3% paid it in 1978. Graphs showing the rise and fall in people’s incomes according to whether they have one child or more feature extraordinarily sudden and tremendous blips because of the child benefit clawback from people who earn more than £50,000 a year, of which I have been very critical. I do not know whether this is correct, but I have been told that a family with three children and an income of between £50,000 and £60,000 faces an additional effective marginal tax rate of 24%, on top of income tax and national insurance. I cannot believe that the Chancellor wanted to impose such a sudden, steep burden of taxation on middle-income taxpayers.

Many Members favour helping people on very low incomes. I happen to believe that the best way of helping poor people is not to churn more and more tax and benefits in their direction so that they have very high marginal tax rates—as high as 73% in the case of those who increase their earnings if they earn less than £10,000—but to take them out of tax altogether. Let me say to my Liberal friends that the one good thing that they have done in recent years is to present that argument, and I think that they have made their case. An extraordinary burden has been placed on people on lower incomes, who have been taxed far too much far too early.

I believe that my idea of a flat rate of tax is not such a radical or bad idea but one that could appeal across the spectrum, and I urge my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to consider it carefully. Otherwise, every time the Chancellor seeks to tamper with the screws and the bolts on the Titanic to ensure that those watertight compartments do not just reach halfway up the forward decks but reach the top so that the thing does not sink, he will produce a Budget that sounds good on the first day but will be unpicked and unpicked.

I think that, rather like John Bright, the Chancellor needs to see that shining light on the horizon. He needs to say, “This is my strategy, this is my philosophy, this is what I want to do. I want to say to the British people that ultimately I will take pretty much the same share of the cake as has been taken in recent years.” We all know that, for all Mrs Thatcher’s reputation for being such a right-wing radical Prime Minister, it was only after many years that, by an almost infinitesimal margin, she gradually reduced the extent of the state’s take from ordinary people. It may be impossible for the Chancellor to make a great deal of difference in those terms, but he can say, “This is my strategy. I want to be upfront and fair to the British people, so that they know exactly where they stand. If you have an income of £300,000, I will take a third of it: I will take £100,000. If you have an income of £100,000, I will take £33,000—and so on across the spectrum.” Then there will not be all the hillocks and valleys and clawbacks and allowances and churning of benefits and taxation.

I am, in a sense, sympathetic to the philosophy behind what the Chancellor has been trying to do with child benefit. Why should middle-income earners pay tax at a certain level and then be handed it back in child benefit? I agree with the Chancellor that that is absurd. However, he got himself into a dreadful mess by taking the appalling step that meant that the moment there was one higher-rate taxpayer in a family, all that family’s child benefit vanished. I thought that that was very unfair on a family in which one person worked and another, usually the wife or female partner, wanted to stay at home and look after the children. I am not suggesting that such an arrangement is better or worse than the other form of family life, but I believe that it is simply unfair, which is why I have argued for a marriage tax allowance.

I will do a deal with the Chancellor. I will give up my campaign against his reduction in child benefit and my campaign against his continued failure to introduce a marriage tax allowance, despite what he said in his manifesto, if he will say to me, “I will get rid of all these allowances, and introduce a greatly simplified tax system which is fair and equitable for all classes of people.”

I agree that there should not be a tax system that distorts people’s choices. I agree that any attempt to influence behaviour through the tax system, whether it affects marriage, children, mortgage tax relief—as in the old days—or, now, charitable giving, will produce perverse incentives. It will cause people to adjust their behaviour to reduce their tax bills rather than doing what is right, and I want people to do what they feel to be right. I want the state to be open, fair and upfront about what it is going to take, and I want the Chancellor to come to the House and say in his next Budget “This is my strategy, and this is my belief.”

I accept that—bravely, courageously, with great difficulty, and in the face of an enormous amount of bad publicity over the last three weeks—the Chancellor has taken the first essential steps towards getting rid of those allowances, and I am prepared to stand by him. I am prepared to be unpopular over the granny tax, because I can see where he was coming from. The Chancellor considered it absurd for people to be paid that allowance. Although it was apparently very popular, when there was talk of abolishing it, no one remembered that it had been introduced by Winston Churchill in 1925. I am prepared to be unpopular by supporting the Chancellor on all those issues if he is prepared to enunciate his philosophy of creating a fairer and simpler tax system. That is a fair deal, I think.