Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I suggest the hon. Lady reads last week’s edition of Schools Week, which said that the unions had admitted that they had their sums wrong and in fact per-pupil funding was being protected in real terms in 2018-19 and 2019-20.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the Chief Secretary confirm that per-pupil spending in this country is higher than that in Japan or Germany? Will she also confirm that this is not just about how much we spend, but about how wisely we spend it, thanks to which 2 million more children are now in good and outstanding schools than there were in 2010?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is correct. In addition, the real-terms funding per pupil will be 50% higher in 2020 than it was in 2000. This Government’s reforms to reading and mathematics are resulting in students’ scores increasing, whereas under the Labour party we just had grade inflation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

We have had numerous conversations with local partners in north Wales, and with the Welsh Government. I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the message to the Welsh Government, but they also need to engage with the UK Government to secure that important deal, which, as he says, will link the economy of north Wales with the north-west and the northern powerhouse to drive productivity.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that cutting corporation tax to 19% has encouraged business investment, boosting productivity as well as encouraging the creation of 3 million new jobs?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we reduce the tax to 17%, we will see those productivity gains increase—and, contrary to what the Opposition have claimed, revenues have increased.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Young Philp was standing a moment ago. The fella has stopped standing. Do you want to get in there, man? Go for it.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I could hardly resist such encouragement.

I wished only to say how much I welcomed the Government’s recent paper, published by the Financial Secretary—[Interruption.] There is a serious point. The paper on corporate tax and the digital economy demonstrated again that this country is showing leadership. I encourage the Treasury to look into working with the European Union on a sales tax, and even to consider a user tax, if we can do that more quickly.

Digital Taxation

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Thank you, Dame Cheryl, for a carefully considered selection. I am glad I was the least worst alternative.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)]

Order. I was expecting another hon. Member to stand to indicate that they wished to speak. They have not yet stood, so you may speak, Mr Philp.

[Chris Philp]

I am sorry that that more attractive alternative did not present itself. However, it is of course an enormous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing the debate.

I am not sure I want to confess this in public, but I will: when this document, “Corporate tax and the digital economy: position paper update”, arrived in my inbox this month, I quivered with excitement because the topic is so important. I am delighted to see the Government, and particularly the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who I gather has been upgraded to be the Paymaster General as well—

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

Both.

[Chris Philp]

He is a man of many talents. I was delighted to see him taking the initiative in this important area.

It is worth saying that significant progress has been made in the past eight years, as some colleagues have mentioned. The country’s tax gap is at just 6%, down from 8% in 2010, and is the lowest among OECD countries, which is a very good thing. The amount of corporation tax that we have collected has gone up from about £35 billion to about £55 billion in the past eight years, despite the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) mentioned, the rate at which it is levied has gone down. That is all extremely welcome, and the Government are to be warmly commended for that progress.

It is, however, also true—I think this view commands widespread support—that a number of typically large multinational companies, often providing digital services, such as Google and Facebook, have succeeded in organising their affairs, fully in conformity with current international tax laws, such that they manage to argue that the substance of their economic activity takes place in very low-tax jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions are often in the Caribbean, and I suspect that they are not selected for their clement climate. That situation strikes me as fundamentally unfair and unreasonable. The Government have, of course, already taken a lead in the matter, via the base erosion and profit shifting initiative, including such things as limiting the deductibility of interest expense to 30% of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation. The UK Government led on that, and are to be strongly congratulated on it. However, there is scope to go significantly further.

It just does not seem right or fair that a company such as Google, with revenues in relation to UK customers in the order of £4 billion, pays virtually no tax by successfully arguing that the substance of its economic activity lies elsewhere. That is why I was so excited by the position paper update, published a few weeks ago. The approach laid out in the excellent position paper, which by the way I fully support, is a multilateral one of trying on an international basis to redefine economic activity to account for the value created by users. It is exactly the right thing to do, and I hope we are successful in that. However, I suspect that as with any multilateral enterprise, it will take time to get agreement with many other countries, particularly when some of the companies concerned will use their influence to try to slow things down and stymie progress. While it is certainly right to take a multilateral approach to changing the way we define economic activity, it is important to have a plan B that could be implemented much more quickly.

The position paper deals with that admirably. It discusses a tax on sales and, as hon. Members have said, the European Union is looking at that. I fully support that approach. A threshold of the kind that we have talked about, to exclude small and even medium-sized companies, is the right thing. The number that I heard mentioned—3% of sales—seems reasonable. A point that I want to make more for the 27 European countries than for us is that care should be taken to ensure that the EU does not use it as a pretext for retaining the tax receipts and developing a European Union treasury function for the first time. That will not, I think, concern us, but it might concern the other 27 members.

I advocate that if the European Union does not move quickly enough and implement the sales tax in a timely fashion—and by “timely” I mean that I hope it would happen in the next 12 to 24 months—the UK should take unilateral action. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire made a cautionary point about not making the UK uncompetitive, but of course the tax would be based not on where the company was domiciled but on where its sales occurred and where its users were. It would not be a disincentive to locating in the United Kingdom, either for permanent establishment or locus of incorporation. A sales tax or, indeed, a user tax would not violate the principle of competitiveness to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. We are generally speaking the second largest market for the companies in question, behind the United States of America. We are significantly larger than Germany because our economy tends to be rather more intensively digital. I do not think that, if we took unilateral action, Google or Facebook would suddenly refuse to do business in the United Kingdom. If they did, they would be pulling out of their second largest global market.

I suspect that unilateral action on a sales tax while we are a member of the European Union—and, I suspect, during the transition period up to December 2020—would probably be classed as VAT, or sufficiently similar to VAT to fall foul of European regulations. If we have to consider unilateral action, which I advocate and support, prior to our exit from the EU or the end of the transition period, something other than a sales tax would have to be considered. Something we might consider that would not fall foul of EU regulation on sales taxes and VAT would be a tax based on users. We might set a user-based tax of a certain pound amount per active user, for example. That would, again, apply only to the very largest companies with, perhaps, a UK turnover in excess of £100 million. That would make sure that they made a reasonable contribution before we managed to come up with a multilateral solution at global level or a sales tax at European level. It would, I think, be a good move. It would not undermine our competitiveness and it would mean that those companies were seen to make a fair contribution.

The proceeds of such a tax could usefully be applied in the area of business rates. Several colleagues have mentioned that, and I am sure that small businesses in all our constituencies have raised the issue of business rates with us. Of course, digital companies such as Google and Facebook—and even Amazon, because it operates from large warehouses in remote locations that do not have a high rateable value—pay little in business rates. They also pay little in corporation tax, although of course they pay their full share of payroll taxes. It is inherently rather unfair: local high street businesses pay their full share of business rates and corporation taxes. So some of the money raised by the digital tax, whatever form it might take, could be applied to offer business rate relief, particularly to smaller businesses—perhaps those with less than £28,000 a year of rateable value.

I should be interested to hear the Financial Secretary’s response to the one or two ideas that I have set out. Really, however, I want to express my strong and enthusiastic support for the course that he has laid out. It is a great pleasure to come here and support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this genuinely important debate. I agree with much of what he said at the start of his contribution, particularly about tax base erosion. That is why I welcome what the Government have said previously about the focus being on economic activity rather than simply profit. We must begin to tackle the rather vexed and long-standing issue of profit shifting.

However, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s interim solution would work. In essence it would be a turnover tax, and although there might be some superficial merit in that, it could potentially be damaging for high-volume, low-margin businesses. It would also, I suspect, immediately increase the risk viewed by those who provide capital for large digital start-ups—perhaps those with a large turnover and a business plan that will not see profit for some time. One can see how the funders of capital for such start-ups might be tempted to put their money into similar businesses located elsewhere.

[Chris Philp]

Google and Facebook can be described as many things, but “low-margin” is not one of them. I suggested a threshold of £100 million for UK sales or €750 million for EU-wide sales—such businesses are certainly not the start-ups referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

[Stewart Hosie]

Indeed they are not, but I was referring specifically to an increased risk for start-ups that perhaps have a similar model. That is important if we are to tackle the monopoly argument that was raised earlier.

This debate is not only about taxing digital companies; it is also about the UK Government policy of making tax digital. The SNP fully supports the principles behind that and the move to a phased introduction of digital reporting, not least because we called for it previously. However, we have concerns about the implications that digital reporting might have for small businesses with limited connectivity or in rural areas. We are also concerned about the closure of HMRC offices in Scotland and the rest of the UK, because that will limit the Revenue’s ability to provide the help and guidance that small businesses and individuals need.

Let me briefly take those three issues in turn. Following the consultation, on 13 July the Minister outlined the new timetable, which we welcomed, and said that only businesses with a turnover above the VAT threshold would have to keep digital records, and only for VAT purposes. That will happen in 2019, and businesses will not be asked to keep digital records or to update the Revenue quarterly for other taxes until at least 2020. We welcome those measures, but they will still require businesses to face challenges. Those challenges include changes to record keeping, because businesses will no longer be able to rely solely on manual records. There will also be changes to VAT returns, which must be submitted through the functional compatible software and not the normal HMRC portal, and all that is supposed to take place at around the same time as the UK leaves the EU. We all know that in a period of flux when there are changes to systems, there is more opportunity for fraud. What action will be taken so that we are observant and ensure that people do not try to fiddle the system at a time of a number of simultaneous changes, which include leaving the EU and the introduction of the online digital report?

As I said, the SNP is concerned about the effect that digital reporting could have on small businesses with limited connectivity or in rural areas. In particular, we are concerned about the impact on small businesses with limited technology for connectivity—or those that do not make much use of the internet—if they have to report online. Such measures will also affect smallish businesses in rural areas, where connectivity may not be as good as is required. I know there is a fall-back position, which I welcome, but will the Minister confirm that if digital capacity is not there, the fall-back position will be the current manual system, and that we will not create a new manual system to replicate the online system as it goes live?

The closure of HMRC offices could limit the Revenue’s ability to help businesses and individuals. That is important because as we know, a large part of the tax gap is due to error by both those paying and the Revenue. With the introduction of a new system, combined with the closure of local tax offices, may we have an assurance that there will be a good degree of forbearance for anything identified as an honest mistake during that period? I am also aware, as other hon. Members will be, of how specific local knowledge has uncovered fraudulent activity that would have gone undiscovered in a more general, generic system. Will the Minister confirm what checks and balances will be introduced with the new digital reporting, particularly on VAT, to ensure that some of the rather more obvious scams that we all know and have seen are detected, and the fraudsters punished?

My final point is slightly tangential, but it is important: we must not let technology drive the policy. If the digital tax roll-out is a huge success, one can see the temptation for the Government to say that we should lower the VAT threshold—after all, it is only a change to a number in the computer system. However, if the VAT threshold is lowered—it was rumoured that that would happen at the last Budget—businesses that turn over £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000, and make a good living for someone, or even two livings, will suddenly have to take 20% off their bottom line because their raw costs are low and they can claim little back. If the digital tax roll-out works, the Minister must not allow that to drive the policy and drive down the VAT threshold. I believe that would be a mistake, because it would crush entrepreneurialism and start-ups if people thought that with that additional VAT burden, it would be a struggle to make even one living out of a business that turns over £60,000 or £70,000.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate on this important topic. I am in agreement with much of what has been said: I am not sure whether I should be worried about that or the other side of the Chamber should be. As for the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), I am more than happy to get the shadow Chancellor to sign his red book, if he thinks that will be of help. I think I will give the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) a copy of “Funding Britain’s future”, and he will be as excited and quivering as the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) as he reads it.

In today’s tax system there is clearly one rule for workers, small businesses and the self-employed and another rule for large multinational corporations, which have successfully harnessed globalisation to maximise profits while minimising the tax they are required to pay. People have indicated that today. According to HMRC, multinationals avoided as much as £5.8 billion last year in corporation tax alone. That represents a 50% increase from the Government’s previous forecast.

The growing discrepancy, as hon. Members have alluded to, between the revenues that companies such as Google and Amazon record and the low level of tax they pay in the UK only demonstrates how divorced from the reality of the modern economy our corporate tax system has become. Small businesses, on the other hand, will be subjected by April 2019 to increasing regulations and stricter timetables for the filing of online taxation, notwithstanding some of the amelioration of that process. The Opposition have raised that issue many times. The mandated start time for small businesses to file online for returns will coincide closely with Brexit, so there is a serious risk that they will be overwhelmed with the nature and scale of changes required during that period, especially in relation to digitalising tax returns.

I congratulate the Minister on his Paymaster General position. That reminds me, when the cheques are signed in Her Majesty’s presence and it is not the Minister, I am not sure who does not trust whom in that situation. Despite the Minister’s promises over the past year, I am not quite sure that enough has been done to trial the software and that should be looked at. There is a consensus across the Chamber about large multinational technological companies not paying their fair share of tax, and increasingly shifting profits offshore to tax havens and countries with low-tax regimes. We have heard, for example, that eBay paid £1.6 million on £1.3 billion worth of revenue raised in the UK. It goes on and on. Credit to those hon. Members who have raised this.

There is also the question of HMRC resourcing—raised by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie)—which is an elephant in the room as far as I and other hon. Members are concerned. The Government launched two consultations last year on corporation tax and the digital economy, and royalties on withholding tax. Those are important steps, but they remain pretty poor compensation when considering the deficit of meaningful action that is being taken. The EU, on the other hand, is already considering, as hon. Members have indicated, the introduction of 3% tax on the revenues of multinational digital businesses. That tax would affect firms such as Facebook and Google with a global annual revenue—as the hon. Member for Croydon South has said—of above €750 million and taxable EU revenue above €50 million. So the policy reflects a growing shift across the world, where many countries are moving towards a tax system where companies would be expected to pay a tax on revenues rather than profits. For example, there is currently a Bill going through the Indian Parliament that would force companies to pay tax on their economic presence. Those are all options for discussion and debate. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Harborough has brought this debate to us today, because we can start the particular process of teasing out those options. That was a problem first raised at the global level by the OECD in 2012 via its base erosion and profit shifting initiative, which has also been mentioned today.

In the press, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that a tax on the revenues of tech companies in the UK is the “preferred option”. It might come out in the Government’s review. It will be interesting to know how the Financial Secretary came to that decision. Perhaps he can tell us more about that today. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has rightly pointed out that any action must be in co-operation with other states, as far as possible, to prevent the UK becoming an outlier. It argues that unilaterally abandoning a negotiated international approach to allocating taxable profits between countries would risk retaliation, double taxation and perversely new arbitrage opportunities.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that in terms of profit allocation that does need to be done multilaterally on a global basis, but does he accept that a sales tax—or certainly a user tax—could be done unilaterally?

[Peter Dowd]

I think the debate is to be had. That is the point. In the spirit of co-operation the debate has been started today and I have tried to put in my tuppence worth, as have other hon. Members. With that in mind, I ask the Minister what discussions the Chancellor has had with EU counterparts about an EU-wide initiative to tax tech companies’ revenues. How will the EU’s initiative complement the Government’s plans? What is the likelihood of the EU’s tech tax being introduced before we leave the EU on 29 March 2019? Will the UK adopt the EU’s tax on tech companies’ revenues irrespective of us leaving?

Finally, what discussions has Her Majesty’s Treasury had with representatives from other countries outside the EU on a tax revenue for tax companies, particularly at last week’s G20 meeting? It is extremely important that the UK acts as part of a collective effort to stand up to tax avoidance and to ensure that tech companies and other multinational corporations pay their fair share and cannot operate outside the law. I exhort the Government to test out some of the suggestions made today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Spring Statement

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

No. We made our decision to defer Making Tax Digital mainly because there was a need for greater awareness among businesses and more time to prepare for the relevant software and so on. We are confident that businesses will be able to roll out the programme on the current schedule. Although I readily accept that there is some disquiet among potential business users, I also confidently predict to the hon. Lady that once they have got used to it, they will find that it is hugely beneficial to them, and that it saves them a lot of time and angst in their dealings with HMRC.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Since 2010, the minimum wage has increased from £5.93 to £7.83 an hour—a rise of 32%. At the same time, the take-home pay of someone on the minimum wage has gone up by 37%, thanks to the increase in the income tax threshold. Will the Chancellor join me in welcoming the fact that the Government have directed assistance at those on the lowest earnings, and will he assure the House that that excellent approach will remain at the heart of the Government’s strategy?

[Mr Hammond]

We are focused on the needs of those on the lowest pay who are in the workforce. Making work pay, particularly low-paid work, is a priority. I repeat what I said in the statement: partly as a result of the introduction of the national living wage and its subsequent increase to £7.83 an hour, income inequality in this country is now lower than at any point under the last Labour Government. It is falling in this country while it is rising in all other G7 countries.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

Let me start by reiterating the sentiments that I expressed in Committee when we were debating the bank levy. I said then that it served no one to

“homogenise the people who work in the banking sector as either saints or demons.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 814.]

Such a simplification ignores the complexity of our financial services, the individuals who work in them, and the institutional culture that informs the practices within them. About 2,000 people work in the banking sector in my constituency, particularly in Santander, and many of them are my committed constituents.

Similarly, we cannot ignore the important role that banks play in the smooth functioning of our economy. We should avoid a “one size fits all” approach that lumps all banks together for the purpose of a bank-bashing session. The House should have a grown-up, mature discussion about issues such as the bank levy, the indisputable reasons for its introduction, its effectiveness, and why the Government are now desperate to cut it further. First, however—if I can be indulged slightly—I will say a few words about the political context of today’s debate.

Since we last debated the Government’s proposed changes in the bank levy, there have been several developments. This has continued the long saga of what is now recognised as a divided and directionless Government, and it goes to the heart of the whole question of the Government’s finances. We have seen the resignation of the Prime Minister’s deputy, and a botched Cabinet reshuffle in which the Secretary of State for Health refused to budge, another Secretary of State returned to the Back Benches rather than moving to the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Conservative party headquarters wrongly announced that the Secretary of State for Transport would become the party’s chairman. That goes to the heart of the question of the Government’s competence, which also relates to the bank levy.

During the recent Black and White fundraising dinner, at which the bank levy and our review of it were no doubt discussed, and which was held at the Natural History Museum—evidently live dinosaurs were visiting dead dinosaurs—the Prime Minister, addressing the Jurassic attendees, said:

“we are on a renewed mission to fight and win the battle of ideas and to defeat socialism today”.

How did the Government plan to defeat socialism in our modern age—the age of the fourth industrial revolution and the internet of things? The answer was that they held a raffle. While no doubt discussing the bank levy and issues relating to it, they raffled, at £100 a ticket, an eight-gun, 500-pheasant and partridge shoot donated by a millionaire hedge fund supporter who must know a great deal about the bank levy. That is how the Government will defeat socialism: by slaughtering 500 partridges and pheasants.

To keep Tory MPs’ spirits up, the Chief Whip recently sent them all a letter telling them that their performance in Parliament had been “excellent”, and that

“Remaining united in Parliament is a vital part of ensuring that Jeremy Corbyn remains in opposition”—

I am not sure whether he was trying to convince his colleagues or himself. And so it goes on. It is little wonder that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has suggested that Ministers would have to be locked in a room for any agreement to be reached—that is, if they could all find the same room. I would agree with that suggestion, on the condition that we could throw away the key. Meanwhile, the Treasury has been briefing the press that the spring statement will be scaled back to include no Red Box, no official document, no spending increases and no tax changes—and perhaps no embarrassing U-turns either—as well as, no doubt, an inability, yet again, to talk about the bank levy, what we could do with it, and how we could make progress with it.

Rather than the Government outlining a long-term economic plan, we have yet another Finance Bill engineered for the benefit of the few. There is little in the Bill to tackle our dreadful productivity performance, stuttering growth, high inflation and lack of investment in our infrastructure and people, but if we raised more from the banking levy, we could do something about that. In that context, the Government have come up with the bright idea of offering another tax break to the banks by further limiting the scope of the bank levy. That would ensure that, from 2020, banks will pay the levy only on their UK balance sheets, not their overseas activities.

Our position on the bank levy has been clear: we have consistently argued for a more proportionate levy and pointed out that the levy, which would introduced in 2011, would raise substantially less than Labour’s bankers’ bonus tax. In short, we have always stood against the Government’s divisive austerity fetish.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I must gently point out that the Labour party’s position on the bank levy has been anything but clear. Labour Members opposed the levy when it was first introduced. They then called for it to be retained, and their amendments today propose neither retaining nor abolishing it. As the hon. Gentleman’s party’s position is entirely unclear, perhaps he could take this opportunity to clarify it.

[Peter Dowd]

We opposed the levy because it was a reduction in the taxes that the banks were paying. I know the hon. Gentleman wants to be generous to people who already have money and very ungenerous to those who do not have money, but he should give considerable thought to that before he makes such interventions, because it does not do his party’s reputation any good, as that sort of approach is mean and miserly.

That was why we voted against the levy during our consideration of the 2011 Finance Bill, which introduced the bank levy along with cuts to corporation tax and tax giveaways for the most well-off—that is the context. It was also why we expressed concern in 2015 about the Government’s cuts to the bank levy and the introduction of the corporation tax surcharge, and it is why we will vote against this measure today. We will support my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who will—I suspect forlornly—call for a review of the effects of making provisions to discount excess profits of a private finance initiative company for the purpose of calculating the aggregate of the interest allowance of worldwide groups under the provisions in part 10 of the Taxation (International and other Provisions) Act 2010. We support that as a step in the right direction to tackle the whole construct and operation of PFI schemes, which was a policy announced last September by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the shadow Chancellor.

The bank levy was not the brainchild of a Conservative Government. It was not introduced because the previous Chancellor had been suddenly moved by public outrage about reckless decisions made by some in the banking sector who plunged us into the world’s greatest economic crisis in modern times. That is the context for this issue. The levy was not designed to ensure that banks received enormous and unprecedented bailouts from the taxpayer, such as when the Government purchased £76 billion of shares in RBS and Lloyds. It was instead designed to make banks pay their fair share, and I refer Members to the comments about schedule 9 on pages 83 to 93 of the explanatory notes, where that is laid out clearly and unambiguously.

In fact, the very concept of a bank levy was developed at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in 2009. It was championed by the previous Labour Government, who subsequently introduced the bankers’ bonus tax. In the austerity Budget of 2011, the coalition Government decided to dump the bankers’ bonus tax and to adopt the bank levy. At that time, Labour made it clear that the levy threshold was far too low when compared with the money that would have been raised if the Government had stuck with Labour’s bonus tax. Ministers folded under pressure from the banks and set the levy at a lower rate of £2.6 billion.

The threshold was established—here we come to the issue of experts and taking expert advice—despite Treasury officials openly acknowledging it to be far too low. Under the original Treasury plans, the levy would have raised £3.9 billion a year, which is nearly £1.3 billion more than the £2.6 billion that has been indicated. But the then Government, lobbied by the privileged few, ensured that the threshold remained low. At 0.078% for short-term liabilities and 0.39% for long-term liabilities, the level that was set was—not to put too fine a point on it—a pretty tasteless joke compared with that of other countries that introduced a similar levy. It was less than a third of the level set in France, substantially smaller than the level in Hungary, which was set at 0.53%, and even lower than that of the United States of America. In 2015, under pressure from some of the Government’s friends in the finance sector, the then Chancellor cut the bank levy rate, and the current occupant of No. 11 has continued on that particular sojourn. In so doing, he has ensured that, by 2020, the UK’s biggest banks will have received a tax giveaway worth a whopping £4.7 billion. That £4.7 billion could been spent on our public services, and notably on children’s services, which have been cut to the bone.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman says that the banking sector has received a whacking tax cut. I will dispute that further in my later comments, but the figures are these: in 2009-10, the banking sector paid £17.3 billion in tax; last year, it paid £27.3 billion. That represents a 58% increase. So, far from having a tax giveaway, the banks are now paying more in taxes than they were six years ago by some margin.

[Peter Dowd]

That is not surprising: the banks returned to profitability because the taxpayer bankrolled them. That was how they got back into profitability, and they must pay their fair share of taxes as a result. The constituents of every Member of Parliament paid towards that, and when the profits came back in, the taxes went back up. We have helped the banks out, and they have to help our public services out.

The Government claimed that their introduction of the 8% corporation tax surcharge would offset the cuts to the bank levy. If we look at the autumn’s Budget Red Book and the forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, however, we clearly see that the surcharge will not match the fall in the bank levy. According to forecasts, the surcharge is set to increase by £300 million a year, while the receipts that the Exchequer receives from the levy will fall by £1.7 billion a year. That leaves a £1.4 billion gap. That is a fact that is printed in the Government’s Red Book and, as John Adams opined, “facts are stubborn things”.

In 2018, we are still feeling the economic consequences of the actions of the banks. Every day, the Government tell us that there is no money for productive investment and that austerity must continue, yet they have conspired to undermine and limit any remuneration from the banks that caused this sorry state of affairs in the first place. Once again, the Opposition’s ability to amend this Bill has been hamstrung and blocked by the Government’s continued use of arcane parliamentary procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

For example, only a third of the £1 billion originally forecast from some of the measures the Government presented to the House will be raised, and the gap between the tax take originally expected from the 28 anti-tax avoidance measures introduced since 2010 and the revised forecast is £2.1 billion. That is 25% less than the Treasury previously forecast. It is a complete shambles.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being generous with his time. He is trying to suggest that the Government have a bad track record on clamping down on avoidance and evasion. The key measure of that is the tax gap, which was 8% under the last Labour Government and has now fallen to 6%—that is the lowest in the world. Will he congratulate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on that achievement and acknowledge that this Government are doing a better job in this area than the last Labour Government?

[Peter Dowd]

That does not take international profit shifting into account, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He should consider that.

The figures I have mentioned not only add to the growing hole in our public finances but demonstrate the Government’s complete lack of interest in taking on tax avoiders. I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised the last Labour Government’s record. So what was our record on tax avoidance? It might surprise Conservative Back Benchers to hear that Labour brought in anti-tax avoidance measures in the 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 Budgets. Most notably, in March 2004, the Labour Government introduced a disclosure scheme that required anyone marketing a tax mitigation scheme to give HMRC advance notice, giving the Revenue authorities an opportunity quickly to counter the scheme with new legislation. The Primarolo statement in December 2004 announced that the Government would introduce legislation, with retrospective effect, to counter any future scheme.

Labour’s tax transparency and enforcement programme has outlined 16 measures that the Government could take immediately to crack down on tax avoidance, including holding a public inquiry and publishing a public register of offshore trusts. In that fashion, new clause 6 would require the Government to commission a review of the effectiveness of the Bill’s anti-avoidance provisions and their impact on reducing the tax gap. I am proud of Labour’s measures on tax avoidance, and I am proud to stand here and say that.

Members should ponder this question: how can the Government possibly justify cuts in the banking levy while, on average, 30% of our children—it is even more in some constituencies—live in poverty? That question will not go away, however much the Government want it to.

[Chris Philp]

As always, it is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), whose speeches are always entertaining and occasionally informative. He spent a great deal of time talking about the bank levy and the various new clauses standing in his name on that topic. I wish to start by addressing the central thesis of his comments on the bank levy: his suggestion that banks are not paying their fair share, particularly as two of them received state money from about 2009.

It is a matter of incontrovertible fact that banks, as organisations, are paying more tax proportionately than other kinds of corporates. It is of course right that they do, for the reason that the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) mentioned: they did receive taxpayer money. They pay this extra money, compared with other businesses, in two ways. The first is through the surplus profit tax of 8%—they pay about a third more corporation tax proportionately than a non-bank corporation does. The second is through the bank levy. Although the bank levy is being reduced, it will remain in force, so banks will continue to pay proportionately more tax than non-bank businesses after the implementation of this Budget. That is a vital point to get across.

The hon. Gentleman also tried to link funding for children’s services to the bank levy. In one of my interventions, I gave some figures on the total amount of tax that banks are paying. We can argue about why they are paying that extra tax. Clearly, it is at least in part due to the surplus profits rate and to the bank levy. It may also, in part, be due to the fact that the banks’ profits have increased. Whatever the cause, the bare fact is that they are paying £7 billion or £8 billion a year more in tax now than they were some time ago. So suggesting that children’s services have been deprived of money as a consequence of changes to bank taxation simply does not bear scrutiny, given that the financial services sector is paying significantly more tax than it was before, whatever the cause of that may be.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is, as he knows, unfairly paraphrasing my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary. What my hon. Friend has pointed out is that politics is about choices and that this Government have decided, through this set of proposals, to reduce the amount of tax the banks will pay, in a situation where many core services in this country—public services that are supported by Members on both sides of the House—are on their knees. So references to the background situation or attempts to paraphrase what my colleague said are not correct. He is simply making an analysis of the choices this Government have made, which do not bear scrutiny.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention but, as I say, the central, key, cold, hard fact, which will not go away, is that financial services are paying £8 billion or £9 billion more in tax now than they were before. That is money that can be spent on children’s services in his constituency or in mine, on the NHS or on schools. We should welcome the fact that the sector is producing this extra taxation, partly because it has become more successful and partly because the rate of tax has progressively been increased over the past seven or eight years.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about choices and his intervention was unpinned by an assumption: that if we increase the rate of taxation, we invariably raise more revenue. I challenge that assertion, as the famous Laffer curve clearly does. It is clear to me that it is possible to reduce the rate of taxation and at the same time collect more tax, because we, thus, incentivise investment and growth. There is no better illustration of that than the trajectory of corporation tax, taken as a whole, over the past seven years: the rate of corporation tax has come down from 28% to 19%—it is heading down to 17% in a couple of years—yet the cash take from corporation tax over that same period has gone from about £35 billion to about £53 billion or £55 billion. That goes to show that we can cut the rate of tax and, by stimulating the economy and investment, actually collect more money. Similarly, it does not follow that putting up the rate of tax necessarily means that more money is collected, because that might disincentivise investment and job creation.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I feel that we have had this discussion in many of the debates on the many Finance Bills we have debated over the past 12 months. No one on the Opposition Benches denies the existence of the Laffer curve; we simply point out, as a point of fact, that the very large reductions in corporation tax that the Government have introduced have cost the country revenue. That is not in dispute. The analysis is clear that it is not the case that, had the corporation tax level remained as it was when the Conservatives came to power, more tax would not have been generated.

On new clause 3, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the bank levy is a levy on the risk-assessed capital that is on the big banks’ balance sheets. The Laffer curve would not apply to the calculation of what the return would be if the levy remained the same.

[Chris Philp]

Let me take each of those points in turn. The hon. Gentleman asserts that, had the corporation tax rate remained at 28%, we would now be collecting more than £53 billion. That is an assertion, and not one with which one can agree without contention. For example, because of the lower corporation tax rate, plenty of businesses have made investments that they would not have made otherwise. Several companies had located their corporate headquarters outside the UK—

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

Just a moment; let me respond to these two points.

Those companies had located their corporate headquarters outside the UK and so paid corporation tax outside the UK, but in response to the Government’s cutting the rate of tax, they came back onshore and now pay corporation tax here. It does not follow at all that a higher corporation tax rate—28% in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—would lead to a higher tax yield. The direction of travel shows that, as the rate has come down, the amount collected has gone up. I just do not agree with the suggestion that, if the corporation tax rate were 28%, we would be collecting £60 billion or £70 billion.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me answer his second point, I shall happily take an intervention. He suggested that, because the bank levy is a tax on a balance sheet, there is no Laffer curve effect. I dispute that. Banks are mostly international—for example, our largest bank, HSBC, is a very international bank—and they can choose where they deploy capital. Their finance director will sit and decide where to allocate capital around the world. If the taxation or regulatory regime in a particular jurisdiction leads to the returns in that jurisdiction being unattractive, they will rationally respond to that by allocating their resources—in this case, their bank equity—somewhere else. There is unquestionably a Laffer curve effect in relation to the bank levy.

Before I take the two interventions that I promised to take, and will, let me just say that all that links to a related point mentioned by the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Bootle: the disapplication of the bank levy to the non-UK part of a UK-headquartered bank’s balance sheet. In these international times, a bank such as HSBC can choose where it is headquartered and domiciled. HSBC was famously thinking about moving two or three years ago. HSBC is a good example because I think the majority of its balance sheet is non-UK—it has huge operations in Africa and the far east. Were we to continue to levy the bank levy on HSBC’s non-UK balance sheet, there would be a powerful, perhaps even irresistible, temptation for it to change its arrangements such that those profits and that balance sheet were booked through some other centre, such as Shanghai, or probably more likely Hong Kong, or possibly Singapore.

It is beneficial to the UK to have those HSBC assets booked here, because, of course, we get the corporation tax, including the corporation tax surcharge, booked through London, and there are clearly jobs connected with that. If we leave the bank levy on the non-UK balance sheet—the business is done overseas but booked here—and drive the booking overseas, we will lose that corporation tax and those jobs. The change to the bank levy is a sensible measure that will protect London’s status as an international financial centre, because the relevant part of the balance sheet is very internationally mobile.

I think there are two, or perhaps even three, interventions stacking up, so I shall happily take them all.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This argument is integral to the economic prosperity of the UK. On the point that he has just raised, I say clearly that we should wish to keep that substantial national asset, which is our financial services industry, in the UK, but it is Brexit that will drive it away. HSBC’s plans at the minute, in terms of relocating staff, are entirely linked to wholesale banking functions under Brexit. However, if there is one phrase that I would wish to etch on to the door of this Chamber, it is that causation and correlation are not the same thing, and that applies to his corporation tax argument. The average rate of corporation tax in OECD countries is 25%. There is a diminishing return from reducing it. When even Conservative councils are effectively going bankrupt, surely that requires greater reflection and self-analysis of the disastrous trajectory of some of the Government’s tax policies over the past eight years.

[Chris Philp]

A number of points have been raised there. On the point about correlation and causation, of course I understand that they are not the same thing. However, in my remarks about corporation tax reductions, I did point to some of the causal links. The two causal links that I cited were, first, encouraging investment and, secondly, companies choosing to move their domicile—for example, from Switzerland back to the UK. Therefore, there are two causal explanations as to why a reduction in the rate of tax might lead to an increase in the tax yield.

[Peter Dowd]

The explanatory statement for new clause 3 says:

“This new clause requires the Government to carry out a review of the bank levy, including its effectiveness in relation to its stated aims, the revenue effects of the changes made in 2015 and the comparable effectiveness of the bank payroll tax.”

The stated aim, as set out in the Government’s own document, is as follows:

“Its purpose is to ensure that banks and building societies make a fair contribution, reflecting the risks they pose”.

We are asking for a review. If the hon. Gentleman is so sure of his facts and his case, why not have the review and see who is right in this debate?

[Chris Philp]

The Government conduct analyses and reviews the whole time. I am not sure whether we need to put the review into primary legislation. As the hon. Gentleman refers to new clauses 3 and 4, which stand in his name, I will turn to them now.

The new clauses call for various reviews and registers. Of course, analysis is important. That analysis, I believe, takes place in the Treasury already—I am sure that the Financial Secretary will comment on that in due course. What is interesting about the new clauses tabled by the Opposition is not so much what is in them, as what is not in them—it is the dog that did not bark, if I can borrow from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

I mentioned in an intervention that the Labour party appears to have taken a number of different positions on the bank levy: it voted against it in 2011; it voted against the surplus tax in 2015; and then it stated in public that it wished to leave the bank levy in place, despite having voted against its introduction, which strikes me as rather confused. I was rather hoping that its new clauses and amendments might enlighten us on what its position actually is on the bank levy. This is primary legislation. This is a finance Bill soon to become, I hope, a finance Act. The Opposition had a chance here in this Chamber today to explain to the House and to the country how they think our tax system should work in relation to the bank levy. They could have tabled an amendment, had they chosen to, saying that they wanted to leave the bank levy in place as it was, or they could have tabled an amendment abolishing it altogether, yet they have done neither of those things; they have simply called for analysis. I am disappointed that their plans have not been elucidated.

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

However, if I am about to be enlightened, I will of course give way.

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The Government introduced an arcane procedure, which was first used, I think, by Winston Churchill in 1929, effectively to stop us moving any substantive amendments. Does he not recognise that, whatever we wanted to do, we would not have been able to change things anyway, because the Government were not permitting us to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I am not sure. This is a moment when my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is required to advise on such matters. I do not share his expertise in parliamentary procedure. However, the shadow Chief Secretary did not specify in his quite extensive—and, at times, amusing—remarks the official Opposition’s position on the bank levy. There is certainly no parliamentary procedure that prohibited him from doing so, so he could quite easily have chosen to specify his exact view—whether the bank levy should continue as it is, go or do something else—yet he did not do so. I am rather disappointed by the lack of clarity on that point.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said a few moments ago in one of his many interventions that HSBC might contemplate its jurisdiction in the light of Brexit. In fact, HSBC was debating where to domicile itself well before the referendum. If anyone or anything threatens the City of London’s status as a global financial centre, it is not the matters being debated today and it is not Brexit. In fact, it is the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the comments he made a day or two ago, which, in the words of one commentator, threatened to turn London into a new version of Pyongyang. That is what he said. It was in the Evening Standard—a newspaper edited by a highly reputable journalist.

PwC has done some analysis of the tax contribution made by the financial services sector, finding that it paid £72.1 billion in taxes last year. That is about 9% of the UK’s total tax take. It is no laughing matter when misguided and populist politicians take a cheap shot at the City to get some headlines. If business is driven away, the implications will be very severe for our tax take and for employment. If we lose the tax revenue generated by the City, the people affected will of course be children and the NHS.

I ask the shadow Chief Secretary to convey gently to his dear leader that comments such as those made a day or two ago are very unhelpful to the City. They endanger jobs and jeopardise the £72 billion of tax that the City pays. Whether it is through fiscal measures or through words, it is a very serious matter when we endanger jobs and the tax revenue from the City that funds about two thirds of the NHS’s budget. In this Bill and in our words, we should protect that tax revenue and those jobs.

[Peter Dowd]

I am more than happy to convey the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the Leader of the Opposition, although I do not accept them. Will the hon. Gentleman also pass on my comments to the Prime Minister? She is making a mess of Brexit, which is far more dangerous to this country than the comments allegedly made by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Chris Philp]

There is no allegation; they were said publicly. I will of course convey the hon. Gentleman’s comments in a spirit of reciprocation, but I dispute the remarks about Brexit. We saw fantastic progress before Christmas and are moving on to the next stage. I look forward to the series of speeches by my Cabinet colleagues in the coming days and weeks that I appreciate are on a different topic to the one at hand.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I must defend the Leader of the Opposition. The comments that he made to the EEF national manufacturing conference were simply that finance must serve industry and that this country has to find ways to increase lending to businesses, to have more productive outcomes for the economy and to lower regional inequality—all things that were previously said by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who now finds work as the editor of the Evening Standard. I do not think that that is unreasonable in any sense. The feedback I have had from that conference is that the reception in the room was very favourable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Chris Philp—on new clause 3.

[Chris Philp]

Well, I am not sure whether I can respond to the hon. Gentleman’s comments while adhering to Madam Deputy Speaker’s gentle guidance, other than to say that I think that the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks went rather further than the hon. Gentleman just suggested.

Perhaps it is time to move on to the measures relating to tax avoidance and evasion, particularly new clause 6. The shadow Chief Secretary made a series of quite serious allegations about the Government’s effectiveness over the past seven years in combating tax avoidance and evasion. I disagree quite strongly with the premise of his points. He suggested that the current Government had been slow to act—indeed, had not acted—in these areas. I gently draw his attention to the fact that in the past eight years since 2010 the Government have taken 75 different measures designed to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance that have raised, cumulatively, £160 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to comment on the actions of the Government of over 20 years ago. I am commenting on the actions of the Government who have been in office for the past eight years, whose record is one that I am proud of and stand behind.

Because of these measures, our tax gap has reduced, as I said in an intervention, from 8% to 6%—the lowest in the world, and better than under the last Labour Government. When I made that intervention, I heard the shadow Chief Secretary make reference to profit shifting. Profit shifting is a serious matter. That is why I am pleased that the UK Government were at the forefront of the OECD’s BEPS—base erosion and profit shifting—initiative. Action 5 of that is specifically designed to clamp down on so-called profit shifting. I accept that this is an issue, and I am pleased that the UK Government have been taking action in that area.

[Rachel Maclean]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend, from his position of expertise, is reminding us of what a great record we have of collecting tax, rightly—tax that pays for schools, hospitals and police services up and down the country, as well as in Redditch, of course, which I care about the most. Does he agree that we have collected £12.5 billion more than if we had left the tax gap in the same state that Labour left us with? That is £12.5 billion to be spent in everyone’s constituency.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The fact that the tax gap is 6% rather than the 8% bequested to us by Gordon Brown sounds like a theoretical point, but that two percentage point difference, as she rightly says, amounts to billions of pounds funding the NHS and schools. In debating these avoidance measures, we are not talking about something theoretical and of academic interest: it is precisely these measures that fund our public services, and that is why they are so important.

Turning to the Opposition’s amendments and new clauses, I was rather surprised, on looking at the amendment paper earlier today, to see that new clause 6 once again calls for a review and analysis—analysis which, I am sure, is already conducted by the Treasury, as the Financial Secretary will no doubt point out. But there was an absence—a silence and a desert; tumbleweed was rolling across the amendment paper—where I would have expected to see an abundance of ideas that we might have adopted from the fertile mind of the shadow Chief Secretary. If he could not have proposed ideas in an amendment for some arcane parliamentary procedural reason, he might at least have done so in his speech.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is an extremely attentive and receptive Minister. Had the shadow Chief Secretary proposed some constructive ideas, I am sure that the Financial Secretary would have listened carefully. I am very disappointed that after all the noise and, I dare say, bluster—I hope that is not unparliamentary—that we heard in the shadow Chief Secretary’s speech, we did not hear any concrete ideas. We cry out for and are open to new ideas, yet we did not hear any in what was otherwise an amusing and entertaining speech. I am disappointed.

If the Financial Secretary is in the market for new ideas on avoidance, as I am sure he is, one idea is that we could give some thought to ensuring that the Land Registry records the ultimate beneficial ownership of property and land. We discussed that yesterday in our debate on sanctions, and it was suggested by David Cameron a couple of years ago. When the ultimate beneficial ownership of those properties changed, we might then levy stamp duty on that change as though the physical property had been transferred. A lot of high-end residential property is held in non-UK corporate wrappers, and when the property is transferred, rather than selling it, as we would sell our properties, ownership of the company is transferred. There is no record of that in the UK and therefore no stamp duty is paid. That idea might well raise some more stamp duty. I could hardly criticise the shadow Chief Secretary for his lack of ideas without proposing at least one myself. I hope that Ministers will give some thought to that idea in due course.

In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am glad I have said something that finds favour among Opposition Members. I must have set a record for the number of interventions taken, though there was only one from my own side. The action on the bank levy contemplated in the Bill is the right one. We are taxing banks more heavily than non-banks. We are raising more money than ever before, but we must be mindful of the risk of driving these companies or part of them overseas at a time when they contribute 9% of our total income.

On avoidance and evasion, I am proud that this Government have delivered the lowest tax gap in the world and improved by a quarter the position that they inherited. That pays for public services, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). It is a good record, and I am proud of it. I look forward to supporting the Bill.

[Stella Creasy]

I rise to support the amendments tabled by the Opposition and to speak to my amendments 1 to 4.

I was into PFI before all the cool kids were. These amendments speak to a long-held concern of mine, which is that it is not enough for us as politicians to identify when something has gone wrong and to shrug our shoulders and say, “It’s complicated.” The consequences for the communities we represent and for this country’s public finances are so toxic that it is vital we act.

George Bernard Shaw said:

“Political necessities sometimes turn out to be political mistakes.”

Let me be clear that I am not seeking to blame anyone. Governments of all colours used PFI. It started in 1992 and has gone on to the present day. Absolutely, the last Labour Government used PFI to fund things, and it was not an ideological decision; it was a very simple one about keeping borrowing off the books.

However, we know now just how costly these decisions have been for this country. Every single school, hospital, street lighting system and motorway built was needed, but we know now that the consequence of these costs is that we may not be able to build such things in the future. I am in the Chamber today to propose a way in which Parliament can now act to get money back for our public services, because everyone of us has one of these projects in our constituencies.

We can talk about the numbers involved: £60 billion of capital building, on which we will pay back £200 billion. These companies are truly the legal loan sharks of the public sector, charging an excessive rate of interest in comparison with public sector borrowing for building and running services for us. Conservative Members may say that the cost I am talking about includes services, so it is worth breaking down the charges. Last year alone, this country paid out £10 billion in PFI repayments, over half of which was for interest and charges. The money we are paying for PFI is not paying for schools and hospitals to be run; it is paying the profits of the companies we borrowed from to be able to build them in the first place.

The National Audit Office has done absolutely sterling work uncovering just how bad a value-for-money calculation it was to go for PFI. On average, these projects are 2% to 4% more expensive than Government borrowing at the time. In total, with charges and fees included, they are now, on average, 40% more expensive than having worked with the public sector.

The interest rate matters because the costs are not necessarily about the management of a project; they are about the profits being made. Every single MP who is being lobbied about their schools and hospitals needs to recognise that 20% of the extra money the Government say they are giving to schools and hospitals will not touch the sides of emergency wards or go into the budgets of teachers to pay for the books and classes our schoolchildren need. It will go straight out of our public sector into pure profit for these companies.

The Centre for Health and the Public Interest has gone through the accounts of the few hundred companies running schools and hospitals to identify just how much money is involved. It found that they will get £1 billion in the form of pre-tax profit from NHS deals alone, which total just 125 of the 700 PFI projects. For example, the company holding the contract for University College London has, alone, made £190 million in the past decade out of the £725 million the NHS has paid out. In short, it has made enough in profits to build and run an entire hospital.

We have to talk about the human cost. I became interested in PFI when I saw the damage it was doing to my local hospital, Whipps Cross in Walthamstow, and to schools such as Frederick Bremer School in Walthamstow. Its headteacher is now desperately struggling to balance her budget in the face of this Government’s swingeing cuts to the schools budget, but the one repayment she cannot cut is the PFI one. Barts, the biggest PFI in our NHS—with a £1 billion capital build, and £7 billion repaid—is paying £150 million a year, of which £74 million is interest alone. It is no wonder that the hospital is in such persistent financial difficulty.

Taxes on Small Businesses

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd]

Of course we have.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

What’s the answer?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, asks for the answer. We are here for the Government to defend their record, not for a defence of what Labour’s record will be. [Interruption.] It is okay for Members to laugh, but the bottom line is that the economy is in chaos. Only yesterday the OECD effectively said that the Government should rethink their position on corporation tax. That is not coming from me; it comes from our partners elsewhere.

We want to support small and medium-sized enterprises. I have made the point that it is ridiculous to suggest that they are somehow a foreign land to the Labour party. The country needs, and we have set out, proper investment in the economy and skills and increased productivity. We believe that small businesses can play a part in investment, in a rise in productivity and in helping with skills shortages; but in turn it is our responsibility to help them. I am not sure that they are getting the support they need.

Finance Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

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

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is little direct financial benefit to the company—

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

NI.

[James Cleverly]

Although, as I am reminded, there is an NI implication. Again, I have heard a number of anecdotes about conversations with departing employees from not the most honourable of companies in which things have been said such as, “If this complaint were to gently disappear, I am sure we can squeeze a little more money into your severance payment, using this route or that one.” This is one of the areas where simplicity and clarity are important, because companies may be using massaging methods to try to get a bit more money into the pocket of a departing employee, so that employee does not to have recourse to the law where inappropriate behaviour has taken place. Dangling some cash in front of them may be being used as an enticement not to take a constructive dismissal case, for example, and that is exactly the kind of thing we want to avoid.

In conclusion, I will be generous in spirit and assume that these amendments are just poorly thought through, rather than anything that is attempting to be more damaging. They would undermine the core direction of travel of the Bill, so I will not support them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Any Chancellor would always welcome any net tens of billions of pounds, or even any net billions of pounds, from pretty much any source whatsoever. In terms of the numbers bandied around in Brussels relating to the so-called exit charge, we should recognise them for what they are: an opening gambit in what will be a long and complicated negotiation—nothing more, nothing less.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor agree that, whether inside or outside the European Union, the best way of delivering strong public finances is a strong economy supported by low tax and low regulation, and is that the future we can look forward to?

[Mr Hammond]

The only way of delivering strong public finances is through a strong economy, with sensible and balanced regulation. We have a very large financial services sector in this country, which is a very important contributor to our fiscal balances, and its success depends on our getting that regulatory equation exactly right: too much regulation and we would drive away industry from London; too little regulation and we may lose our reputation as a safe and secure place to do business. We have to get it right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

What I cannot do is look again at the business rates revaluation, which is an independent statutory exercise undertaken by the Valuation Office Agency. As the hon. Lady will know, if experience is anything to go by, of the 2 million business properties revalued, about 1 million will lodge appeals, so there will be a process of reviewing the way in which the valuations have been conducted. I have said I will look at those small businesses facing the largest increases and see how best to help them.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to look again at small business rates taxation in the Budget. The big four supermarkets are being given, on average, a 6.9% cut in their business rates. Will the Chancellor consider setting that rate at zero so that it is becomes “upward only”, and using the extra money to soften the blow for smaller businesses?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not think that that is the right way to proceed. The business rates revaluation reflects the underlying value of premises, and I am afraid it is an inconvenient fact that some large organisations have premises in low-value areas and some small organisations have premises in very high-value areas.