Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the level of taxation levied on the banking industry.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published details of total pay-as-you-earn and corporation tax receipts from the banking sector for the first time on 31 August. The official statistics show that tax receipts from the sector increased from £17.3 billion in 2009-10 to £21 billion in 2010-11. A number of other taxes are incurred by the banking sector that the Office for National Statistics did not include in the figures, including the new bank levy introduced by this Government, which we expect will raise an additional £2.5 billion net each year, which is more in each and every year than the previous Government raised in their one-off payroll tax.

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to the Chancellor for that answer, but the truth is that the High Pay Commission has just published a report demonstrating that high executive pay bears no relation to the performance of companies and that nowhere is this more starkly illustrated than in the banking sector. Meanwhile, youth unemployment is going up. Is it not time we made the banking sector pay its fair share in order to do something for the young unemployed in this country, as advocated by the Opposition?

[Mr Osborne]

That is why we introduced the bank levy, which Labour had 13 years to introduce but did not. It raises £2.5 billion. We are also taking action to clamp down on tax avoidance. We recently proposed a measure to tackle something called disguised remuneration, whereby high earners, often in the financial services sector, disguise their income to avoid tax, but the Labour party voted against the measure.

Finance Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the hon. Gentleman, his party and, certainly, the more blue-blooded elements of it very strongly argue that the state should not intervene in people’s lives, including, in some cases, motorists’ lives, but what we have in new clause 5 is the right of the Tory party arguing for direct state intervention in something very personal: somebody’s personal relationship.

Earlier, it was said that a tax system would encourage people to get married, but there is no evidence of that at all. In the late 1960s and ’70s, when the old married man’s tax allowance was in place, there was a record rise in divorces, but that was less to do with the tax system and more to do with the change in society and the law that clearly made it easier to get divorced or to choose not to marry at all. Again, the idea that £20 a week will encourage somebody not to divorce is quite ludicrous. All the studies find that we would need to offer a considerable amount of money to prevent people from divorcing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) raised the issue of international comparisons, somebody else mentioned Denmark and other countries and the hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned the fact that we are one of the few countries not to recognise marriage in the tax system, but there is no evidence to suggest that taxation as an encouragement to get married does anything to hold the family unit together.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I have listened to my hon. Friend’s speech with a great deal of interest. On fiscal incentives for people to stay together, does he agree that the cost of running two separate households is a major financial consideration for people living apart? It far outweighs any fiscal benefit that the taxation system could deliver.

[Mr Jones]

I agree. The changes being made to housing benefit will not do anything to help families stay together. My hon. Friend is a London Member, so he will know that families will be forced to move out of central London because of the Government’s changes to housing benefit rules. That is one of the inconsistencies of this Government. On the one hand they say that a tax break of £150, or £20 a week, will help to keep the social unit together, and on the other they—the same Minister, I hasten to add—pursue policies on housing benefit and other benefit changes that will not help at all to keep families together but will lead to the root cause of most of these issues: the poverty that affects such individuals.

I turn to some of the problems with the Bill as framed, and to what we have before us. New clause 5 is not the measure in the Conservative party’s most recent election manifesto. This proposed change includes married couples but excludes civil partners, who would not be covered by the new clause. When there was an outcry and complaints about what had been proposed at the election, the Prime Minister included civil partners at the last minute.

People would have to opt in to this system and elect to transfer their part of an allowance. That would be very unfair to many people who do not understand tax codes. I have just got my annual tax return and I keep putting it to one side, as most people do, until the deadline arrives. Introducing a system whereby people have to elect to transfer a certain allowance may well help the more articulate middle-class people who can do that when they fill in the form, but I am not sure that some of the people on poor council housing estates in Glasgow whom the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is trying to address will have the wherewithal or knowledge to do it even if they knew that the option was available.

The Government have told us that they wish to simplify the tax system, but the new clause would make it a lot more complicated. In trying to bolster marriage, it would help certain groups of people but not others. Whenever we do anything with the taxation system, we should try to make it as user-friendly as possible. If someone opted to move their allowance around, that would be quite complicated because people’s incomes change throughout the year, so they might have a certain allowance available in one year but not another. The system would incur not only the £3 billion-plus cost of having it open to everyone but the cost of trying to work out how the tax office would administer it. In that respect, the new clause is not well thought out.

The Government have got themselves into a bit of a logjam on this. The Prime Minister is clearly committed to this policy. His Back Benchers are now worried that it cannot be implemented because of the coalition agreement. Huge amounts of public money would be used, but would it have any effect on child poverty? No, it would not, and neither would it affect most families. Moreover, it would help people without any children, including pensioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

As I sat down to give way to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), the shadow Chancellor said, “You don’t have to be married to benefit from the transferable nil-rate band.” He is absolutely right. As I said, it applies to married couples and those in a civil partnership. That is exactly what I said earlier. As the hon. Member for Dudley North pointed out, it is important that we support widows in the circumstances he mentioned. Does that mean, though, that we should never do anything for married couples? It does not necessarily follow.

I want to put this in the wider context of what we are doing to help strong and stable families. For example, the Department for Education has announced plans to spend £30 million on relationship support to deliver better support for couples in relationship distress. However, as hon. Members will be aware, the Government have made it clear that we intend to introduce proposals to recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system. As the Prime Minister said recently, this will show that as a country we value commitment. I certainly agree, therefore, with the intentions behind the new clause.

Although the Government support the principle behind the new clause, now is not the appropriate time to bring forward such a measure. It would entail significant and immediate costs to the Exchequer, its scope is wider than the Conservative party manifesto pledge and the cost, we estimate, would be more than £4 billion. It would also necessitate substantial implementation costs.

[Clive Efford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way again, but I am keen to make progress.

[Clive Efford]

Will the Minister comment on what message this sends to teachers planning to strike on Thursday? On the day when the Secretary of State for Education was dragged to the House to explain what he was doing to avoid the strike, the priority of Back-Bench Conservative MPs is to propose a motion that would cost more than £4 billion a year, yet teachers are being told that the Government will not negotiate over increases in their pension fund contributions. What message does that send to those teachers?

[Mr Gauke]

We have heard a lot in this debate about single parents. One group that will be affected if teachers go on strike and schools close on Thursday will be single working parents, who will face substantial disruption in dealing with child care. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will strongly urge teachers to go to work on Thursday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I just read out a long list of items that are VAT-free; that was the point of what I was saying.

[Clive Efford]

Those items were VAT-free when the hon. Gentleman made his pledge at the general election. When he stood for election, he said that the poorest people in society were affected most by increases in VAT, and that it was therefore a regressive tax. He was right then, and that point is still right now. Why, then, is it correct and appropriate for the poorest people in our communities to pay for the deficit that was run up by the richest bankers in the country?

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman has strayed off the topic of the new clause, but on my party’s policy on VAT, obviously we are between a rock and a hard place, due to the economic state of the country. We had some very difficult choices to make, and a progressive expenditure tax is the right answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

We should remember that VAT does not apply. I declare an interest, as a VAT-registered person. People who understand how VAT works will know that people who charge VAT can reclaim it on their inputs. We have to look at the details. On the hon. Gentleman’s further point, yes, there is an economic multiplier that has an effect. As demand is increased, there is a multiplier effect. At the same time, we have to look at the long-term effect on the deficit, the debt and the interest paid. As interest rates go up, wider damage is done to the whole of society.

It is true that in an ideal world we would not have higher rates of VAT. In an ideal world everything would be nice, and there would no problems and no difficult decisions to take. We have to get a balance. It is very pleasing to see that the official Opposition now accept that VAT should be 20% in the long term.

[Clive Efford]

There used to be a time when the hon. Gentleman was fond of quoting the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which called the VAT cut “an effective stimulus”. As for the construction industry, does he not recognise the figures showing a 19% increase in the number of business failures in the construction industry in the first three months of this year—since the increase was imposed?

[John Hemming]

There is no VAT on new build. The hon. Gentleman’s party believes that the VAT rate should be 20% in the long term; I thank him for agreeing with us about that.

The Government, essentially, have to bring the deficit under control to keep interest rates under control—and that is what we are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

That is precisely the point. There is a huge contrast between an economy that was growing and doing better than the forecasts had predicted, and a situation where there has been no growth since last October. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Office for Budget Responsibility now predicts that the Government will have to borrow £46 billion more over the coming years than was forecast last autumn after the spending review. Worse, they are failing to get Britain back to work, which is probably pushing up the benefits bill this Parliament by more than £12 billion. That not only makes the deficit worse, but makes the lives of the people involved infinitely more miserable.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend cannot have failed to notice that only one Back-Bench Conservative Member is present—

[Chris Ruane]

No, he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary.

[Clive Efford]

Yes, he is a PPS. By contrast, nearly a dozen Liberal Democrat Members have been present. That is nearly as many Liberal MPs as positions their party has taken on VAT. I have here positions set out by not only the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), but the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who called for a review, and a Liberal Democrat activist, who called for a cut in VAT on tourism in that part of the world. Just how many positions do the Liberal Democrats have on VAT?

[Nia Griffith]

The whole point is that our new clause calls for a proper assessment to be made to see what the actual effect of the current VAT rate is on the economy, given the lack of growth and the lack of a plan for growth. The important thing is to carry out that impact assessment and work out the best growth strategy, because nothing is coming from this Government in order to put things right.

What has been happening in the news recently? Everybody must be aware of the crisis we are facing on our high streets and in store after store. This is happening to TJ Hughes and its 57 stores, to Jane Norman’s 90 stores and 100-plus concessions, to Habitat, and to HomeForm, which covers Möben Kitchens and Dolphin Bathrooms. Some 5,300 jobs are in the balance, and now we hear about what is happening to Thorntons and Comet. Judith McKenna, chair of the CBI’s distributive trades panel, has commented:

“After a year of growth, high street sales volumes fizzled out in June….Shoppers are budgeting hard and cutting back on their discretionary spending, such as on clothes and big ticket household goods.”

She is the CBI’s chief financial officer.

The Economy

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Williams]

I thank my hon. coalition colleague for her intervention, which reinforces my points.

The Government response to the stark situation that we inherited in May 2010 has been to tackle the deficit—the yawning gap—in our public finances, but also to build a business climate that is conducive to growth, because as several hon. Members have said, it is through growth that the economy will provide the resources to get our finances back on track.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Williams]

I have taken two interventions, so I will take no more until near the end, perhaps.

This Government do have a growth strategy: we want to rebalance growth, including rebalancing it geographically. We have just heard about the plight of the north-east. Perhaps it was a failure of the last Labour Government not to rebalance the economy sufficiently, away from the south-east of England and towards other regions and nations of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) ought to have a stiff word with some of his colleagues. After 13 years, the economies of some of our regions were still very fragile and unable to withstand external shocks. We also wish to rebalance the different sectors of the economy, away from over-dependence on the City of London, important as it is, and the resources that it generates towards more sustainable parts of the economy, in particular growth from digital media. The Government have announced the establishment of a network of enterprise zones around the country. My local enterprise partnership—the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership—has just announced that it will be based around Temple Meads station in my constituency, where we want to build the country’s leading media hub and business growth area, with a particular focus on digital media.

We also want future growth to be sustainable in a green way. This country has a huge economic opportunity to grow a low-carbon economy. In the Energy Bill, which is just completing its passage through the House, we have something quite revolutionary: the green deal, which gives every household in the country a fantastic opportunity to retrofit their houses to reduce energy bills and help us cope with meeting the demanding climate change targets that we have set, on which there is cross-party consensus and agreement. There is also a fantastic opportunity for British business, and for people to be trained in the skills needed to retrofit our housing stock. On a rather larger scale, the Government have also announced—the Chancellor confirmed this in the Budget—the creation of the green investment bank, in order to provide finance for schemes that might otherwise find it difficult to secure funds in the market. As the country’s green capital, the city of Bristol has a good case for being made the future home of the green investment bank.

A further way in which the coalition Government are going to make a fundamental difference in turning the economy around and reducing unemployment is by making work pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) mentioned that the coalition agreement would deliver the Liberal Democrat policy of reducing income tax and taking out of income tax completely those people who are earning up to £10,000 a year. That will be achieved before the end of this Parliament. Our programme of welfare reform and the introduction of universal credit was mentioned earlier by the Chancellor in his confrontation with the shadow Chancellor. The Opposition rather recklessly voted against the entire Welfare Reform Bill.

Reform is also needed in the banks. The Opposition motion calls for a reintroduction of the tax on bankers’ bonuses. It is worth pointing out, however, that the people receiving large bonuses will now pay 50% income tax, rather than 40%, that national insurance has doubled for those on the higher rate of tax, and that employers will pay more national insurance on those bonuses as well. The taxation on those bonuses will certainly increase.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

No, I do not think it is fair.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I have one simple question: will the Minister confirm that the majority of people on housing benefit are in work?

[Danny Alexander]

Yes; many people on housing benefit are in work. The point of our reform is to say that the fairness should be between people on out-of-work housing benefit gaining the maximum amount, which we will cap at £400 a week, so that that amount is equivalent to what people in work could receive in housing benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the Government Chief Whip, is not here to listen to that question, but as Ministers in the Government Whips have already taken a 5% pay cut and had their salaries frozen during the Parliament, so they have already shown some restraint. If my hon. Friend wants to catch the ear of the Chief Whip in the Aye Lobby tonight, he can do so.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Has the Government Whips Office had cause to contact the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, following his comments last week? Has having the Liberal Democrats as part of the Government increased the costs of the Government Whips Office?

[Mr Osborne]

The presence of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition means that two parties are working together to sort out a problem that one party created.

Proposed Public Expenditure Cuts

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend said some very good things about how the Opposition treat the rest of the country like children.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Formula grant for local government is about £24.5 billion, made up of just over £3 billion in revenue support grant and just over £21 billion from business rates. The cut is £6 billion, which leaves about £3 billion income from business rates that is not being redistributed in formula grant. Would not a good use of that money be the protection of the poorest and most vulnerable in our communities from the ravages of the cuts being imposed by the Government? Exactly how will businesses be accountable for what that £3 billion is used for?

[Mr Osborne]

As well as considering reforms to the formula grant, we took some steps earlier this year, and we hope to take further steps, to increase the freedoms that local authorities have to spend the money and to have fewer ring-fenced programmes from central Government Departments. We are looking at a review of the formula grant.

Finance Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

I think we have—

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justine Greening]

No, I will not.

We have just heard from the shadow Minister that the Opposition are still in denial, and I shall come to that later. Before we conclude what has been a lengthy debate over the past few weeks, I wish to echo the earlier comments of my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary. Hon. Members throughout the House have played an essential role in scrutinising the Bill, and I thank them all for doing so.

Today we heard from the shadow Chief Secretary—the man who admitted that there was no money left—and from my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who successfully demolished the Opposition’s case for failing to take any action to sort out the deficit. We heard from a number of Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). I listened to what they had to say with great interest, and in many cases they violently agreed that we are in a serious situation that needs to be sorted out. What we failed to get from any of them, however, was any kind of alternative. That thread has run through not just today’s debate but the debates over the past few weeks.

We heard an important contribution from the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who throughout our debates has talked about his concerns about some aspects of the Bill. However, he has recognised that we have to take serious steps to sort out the fiscal deficit. We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Stourbridge (Margot James), who all want a Government who face up to the challenge, as do their constituents.

The Bill provides for many of the key measures in the emergency Budget, which was needed to address the fiscal crisis that we face in our country and get Britain growing. Although it was tough, it needed to be, and was, fair. When we came into government, we had to set up the Office for Budget Responsibility to get, finally, an independent review of the books. That review showed that the books were perhaps even worse than the former Chief Secretary had said.

[Clive Efford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justine Greening]

No, I will not.

The OBR said that the deficit was £12 billion larger than had previously been suggested, so our priority was to tackle that deficit. Although reductions in public sector spending will be necessary to ensure that it is at a level affordable to the public, taxes clearly have to play their part as well. As we have heard, even from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), growth in employment must be led by the private sector. Reducing incentives to employers, as the previous Government would have done by introducing the jobs tax and raising small companies’ corporation tax rates, would have reduced incentives and led to our economy languishing for longer and longer, and debt building up.

[Justine Greening]

That is typical of the contributions that we have had from Opposition Members all the way through our debates. The hon. Gentleman’s party went into the election having passed its Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, which set out 20% cuts. That means one of three things. Either Labour Members had no intention of ever reducing or tackling the deficit, in which case the Act was gross duplicity; or they went into the election standing on a platform of cuts with no idea whatever of how to deliver them, in which case it was gross incompetence; or they knew what they wanted to do but still, in spite of all the hours of debate, fail to admit to any of the measures that they were planning to take, in which case it is gross concealment. We need take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman.

[Clive Efford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justine Greening]

No, I will not. There was a time when the Labour party had something relevant to say on the economy; that time has now passed.

What we need to do is to ensure that companies in this country and across the world know that Britain is open for business. That is why the centrepiece of the Budget was providing a springboard for a private sector-led recovery to take place by reducing the rate of corporation tax year on year over the next four years; reducing the small profits rate of corporation tax, benefiting 850,000 companies; and of course taking difficult decisions on capital gains tax changes that will mean increases for higher rate tax payers while protecting entrepreneurship. The Budget was welcomed by business across the board, and it is important to bear that in mind when Opposition Members say that they do not believe that it will ultimately boost jobs.

Although we wanted to help business succeed, we also recognised the importance of protecting those most in need, and the Budget did just that. From April 2011, we are increasing the personal allowance, removing almost 1 million people from income tax. On pensions, we are taking the power to repeal the pensions tax regime introduced in the Finance Act 2010, which will allow us to bring in a fairer arrangement that will not allow the very rich to benefit from basic rate tax relief. We are re-establishing the earnings link for the state pension with a triple guarantee, making changes to the benefit system that will protect the most vulnerable people in our society, increasing child tax credits and introducing a set of measures that, despite a tough Budget, will leave child poverty unchanged.

We know that we need to take that action, because the Labour party has absolutely no alternative. We have debated the Budget long enough now for Labour Members to have brought forward an alternative if they had one, but they clearly do not. We have been honest and open about the problems that our country faces.

[Clive Efford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justine Greening]

That is what the voters expect, and what they—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Oh, I will give way.

[Clive Efford]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, but will she accept this one point? Throughout the debate her party has argued that the state is too big. Everyone accepts that the Budget will cut the size of the state so that in six years, it will be smaller as a proportion of GDP than it was in 1997. Does that not suggest that it is an ideological move, and on that basis does she not accept that if the Tories had been elected in 1997, they would have come in cutting?

[Justine Greening]

What is too big is the deficit. That is what we need to sort out. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman’s party itself recognised the need to cut public expenditure, which has to be at an affordable level.

While we have sought to engage the public in the debate about how we can recover from the economic crisis, rebalance our economy and rehabilitate ourselves from debt-driven policies, all that we have heard from the Opposition is what they do not like, and nothing about what they would do instead. They have said no to everything and yes to nothing, and they have kept quiet when asked how they would solve the problems that they have caused. It was one party that got us into this mess, and now two parties will have to get us out of it.

We have heard a lot of analogies today, but to my mind the Opposition are in denial: they are like a debt junkie. Like most junkies and addicts, they always want to solve the problem tomorrow. They want a reduction in the deficit tomorrow, growth in the private sector tomorrow, and fairness for those most in need tomorrow. We were never going to see any action from the Labour party, and over the course of this Budget debate we have heard shrill voices of despair from the Opposition Benches.

We have taken decisions that are right for this country—tackling our debt, kick-starting the private sector and taking action to take those on the lowest incomes out of income tax. Those choices are the right ones to start our country back on a credible path to sustainable recovery. We are encouraging enterprise and protecting those most in need, yet tackling the colossal debt left to us and to this country. This coalition Government are making decisions where Opposition Members did not have the courage, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Office of Tax Simplification

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am afraid that I will not be able to give my hon. Friend a precise number, but the code did increase substantially in length. It is also worth noting that during the same period our tax competitiveness, as measured by the World Economic Forum, fell.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Any reduction in the burden on small businesses, or indeed any businesses, of administration costs in paying tax is to be welcomed. However, can the Minister say whether, as a result of simplification of the tax system, he expects to raise more tax or less?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming these measures. The intention is that the OTS will be neither a tax-raising nor a tax-cutting body but a tax simplification body. It will make recommendations, and our approach, wherever possible, is to broaden the base and lower the rate. If, for example, there are recommendations that reliefs should be withdrawn, we anticipate that the money saved could be recycled into tax cuts elsewhere. The OTS should not be seen as anything other than revenue-neutral.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we are to get our economy back on track, particularly in areas such as that which she represents where there has been a growing imbalance and instability—and unsustainability as well—in the local economy, we must have a package of measures in place that can stimulate the private sector. I have set out some of those in terms of corporation tax, and my hon. Friend is right that the regional growth fund is another key investment fund that hopefully can help her area.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Should businesses in the south-east be concerned now that the Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear to the Treasury Committee that the Budget increases the chances of a double-dip recession?

Finance Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

Let me start by saying a few words about my new hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney). I am sure that the House will join me in praising him for his speech and in wishing him every success now that he has joined us here. It is good to hear someone with a radio face with a passionate voice for his constituency. If he continues that, I am sure that his constituents will be well served. It was great to be reminded of the hugely important Lincoln cathedral, which many of us have visited and admired, and of the fact that Parliaments were once more peripatetic. In those days, there was probably less security and fewer people in the baggage train, so it was probably cheaper to take Parliament around the country than it would be today. I fear that he might have quite a long wait before the next Parliament at Lincoln.

We are here to debate tax avoidance and evasion. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I think that the Committee is pursuing a will-o’-the-wisp if it seriously believes that there is £120 billion of tax evasion and avoidance generally, and that there is substantial tax evasion and avoidance in particular on corporation tax, which we are debating, that we can tackle and get the money in from. Every hon. Member would like to think that there is an easy way out of the financial crisis. If there were a great pot of money representing tax dodging that we could identify and bring into the Treasury, it would have been done by now. It is not a matter of party dispute. If there are tax evaders out there whom we know about, they need to be brought to book—we all agree with that. Labour spent 13 years trying to do it, but the hon. Gentleman does not think that it did it well enough, and is now urging the coalition Government to do it. The coalition Government will pursue it in similar ways, with similar intensity, to the outgoing Labour Government. I fear that they will be no more successful than the previous Government at finding that £120 billion pot of gold because, in all honesty, I do not think that it exists in the form that hon. Members wish that it did.

Let us take evasion—the more serious case. I am sure that everyone in the House agrees that if someone is deliberately evading tax, it is a criminal offence. The House has said that it is a serious offence, and made it a criminal offence, or series of criminal offences, and we wish to see those people pursued and prosecuted. In the case of corporation tax, for example, if a company deliberately misreports its income, and says that it receives less income than it earned—one way of misleading the tax authorities over corporation tax—the book should be straightened, the record corrected, and they should be prosecuted. If the company deliberately overstates its costs to try to suppress its profits—the other way in which people could evade corporation tax, if they were seeking to do so—that, too, should be something that the authorities can identify on investigation, leading to a correction of the accounts. False accounting would be involved, as well as the criminal offence of tax evasion, and there are methods of tackling it. The state has a range of powers, introduced by Governments of all persuasions, to allow company investigation, including second-guessing the audit, and going in if it is thought that crooked directors are misrepresenting their costs or revenues, and the auditors have missed it. I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers in the Treasury every success in trying to capture genuine crooks, because we do not need them in our community, and we need to flush them out.

There is another kind of failure to pay the amount of tax that the corporation tax authorities think is correct which, in some people’s language, could be evasion. A company may report honestly its revenues and costs, but comes to a different conclusion from the Revenue about what the taxable profit should be, given its income stream and costs. It attempts to understand the complexity of the law—it may well have its own tax advisers and auditors in support, because any medium or large company does not do this in isolation; the directors want the comfort of knowing that they have serious tax experts behind them, because of the complications of the law—and it makes its case to the Revenue, which disagrees with them. I do not think that that should be treated as a severe criminal offence leading to the imprisonment of the directors. What should usually happen—and what tends to happen—is a fierce exchange of views between the Revenue, which is trying for one view of the tax, and the company and its tax advisers with a different view. Eventually, agreement is reached. If it is thought to be a bad case, the Revenue has the power to impose financial penalties as well as to secure the tax that it thinks that it is owed.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s train of thought, but will he clarify something? Is he saying that there is no such thing as avoidance of corporation tax, or is he saying that anything that comes about is just the result of a misunderstanding?

[Mr Redwood]

Has the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber while I have been talking? The first part of my speech was about bad cases of evasion in which a company has deliberately misrepresented its financial condition. Like him, I think that those cases should be taken seriously, and prosecution should result. I am going on to the second set of cases, in which evasion is thought to have taken place according to the Revenue, but when we look at what is going on there is a genuine disagreement between one group of tax experts, lawyers and company advisers and another lot advising the Revenue, which sometimes needs to consult counsel on these complicated matters to try to reach a conclusion. Such cases are often sorted out slightly more amicably, and rightly so, because the companies concerned were obviously not trying to do down the Revenue but to pay the minimum amount of tax to comply with the law, as most sensible people try to do, and there was a disagreement that had to be sorted out sensibly. That might result in financial penalties or in an agreement not to have financial penalties, but usually the Revenue has a certain amount of strength in having its way.

That is evasion, and then there is avoidance, which is much more problematic. I am sure that billions-worth of avoidance is going on all the time, because it is a perfectly legal approach; one man’s avoidance is another man’s sensible tax planning. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington for an example relating to personal income tax, which is easier for people listening in to this debate to understand. Many small savers switch from tax-paying savings to tax-free savings, which is avoidance of tax, is it not? They realise that they can do better by having a tax-exempt savings product; surely we should not condemn that, because it is about someone trying to get the most for their money. Indeed, that is something that the Government positively encourage. They encourage tax avoidance because they say, “We have the unique power to provide tax-exempt products for savings, and we want you to buy ours rather than the taxed private sector product.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), who made his maiden speech. Many of us remember his predecessor with great fondness, and we certainly notice the difference in appearance to which he referred. She was a popular Member here, as I suspect that she was in her constituency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do an able job in his time as Member of Parliament for Lincoln.

The thrust of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is that the House should be able to scrutinise the Government’s actions on enforcement of corporation tax to avert some of the severe and harsh cuts elsewhere in public expenditure. The Red Book refers to the need to reduce all sorts of evasion. Indeed, paragraph 1.96 mentions the Government’s measures on corporation tax, which a later group of amendments tackles, and states the need to alter the rate of corporation tax to reduce the avoidance of payment. A practice has been created of people avoiding other forms of tax and paying capital gains tax at a lower rate to minimise the amount that they pay in tax. I therefore agree with the thrust of the point that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made that there are times when we need to tweak the tax system to close down loopholes. In that sense, the tax system has historically been like turning a thermostat up and down. We introduce one set of regulations, that area overheats, the thermostat is turned down, another section of the tax system responds and people move in that direction to avoid paying tax.

With amendment 11, my hon. Friend is trying to ensure that the House can hold the Government to account for what they do to fulfil what they say in the Red Book, and thereby ensure that the Government maximise the amount of corporation tax that is paid.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his basic position? Does he believe that in principle corporations ought to pay more tax than they are paying already?

[Clive Efford]

The point, on which I believe we are all in agreement, is that everyone should pay the tax that they are due to pay. Amendment 11 proposes not that corporation tax should be raised or reduced, but that it should be paid, that the Government ought to take action to ensure that companies that are liable to pay it do so, and that the House should have the role of providing a check and balance to ensure that the Government are carrying out that function.

[Mr Love]

Does my hon. Friend believe that there is a tax gap, as I think all Opposition Members do? Whether the gap is £40 billion, £60 billion or £100 billion, it is very significant, and we ought to turn our minds in this Budget to doing something about it.

[Clive Efford]

I could not agree more. If I were to start listing some of the harsher items in the Budget, such as the £1.9 billion that the Government are trying to take out of housing benefit or the overall £11 billion from the welfare budget, I would risk incurring your wrath, Mr Amess. I would also risk that if I were to point out some of the actions of the previous Government in relation to the medical tests that disability living allowance claimants were forced to go through. The coalition Government, supported by the Liberal Democrats, tell us that things will become even harsher for DLA claimants, so our discussion of minimising avoidance of corporation tax is absolutely relevant.

[Stewart Hosie]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to put a number on that? What is his estimate of the value of lost revenue yield as a consequence of the 12,000 Revenue staff lost under the previous Labour Government?

[Clive Efford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that I could repeat. Cutbacks in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff make more distant the target of maximising the amount of tax taken. He may have joined me on the odd occasion when I voted against the previous Government, so we have been on the same side of such arguments from time to time. Some of us are sinners turned saints, and even as a loyal Labour Back Bencher, I might agree with elements of the criticisms of the previous Government.

We have been given instruction in tautology on the question of avoidance and evasion, but we are quite clear that we are talking about people whose actions are not within the rules. We need to ensure that action is taken so that they pay their fair share, because clearly, the increase in taxation—the VAT increase and other measures—and the cuts will hit the poorest in our communities first. That is why it is absolutely essential that we have discussions such as the one instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a shame to let this debate go by without mentioning the activities of Barclays bank, and particularly its capital section? The head reputedly earned £90 million a year. We should consider that amount of money, because that group was set up to find ways for companies to avoid paying corporation tax, or indeed any tax.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend’s intervention needs no comment from me, other than to say that it is an excellent example of the sort of practices that we need to bear down on. We pay a plethora of accountants and financial advisers to advise on how to invest our money wisely, and that is a legitimate area of activity. It is right that people may order their finances within the rules to maximise their income, but if that becomes exploitation or unfair in terms of what people are contributing, we have to act. That is where the amendments that we have tabled on capital gains tax, which we will discuss later, come in.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) mentioned the cut in tax staff, and if we are going to see substantial cuts in staff, it will make it even more difficult for HMRC staff to perform their task on whatever tax they are pursuing, be it corporation tax or any other.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham seemed to dismiss the issue of tax evasion, suggesting that we could pursue evaders until the cows came home, but they would never pay the tax so we would not be able to close the deficit by pursuing them. He then went on to talk about the difference between evasion and avoidance, rather than focusing on what we can do—as the people who scrutinise legislation—to ensure that the Government are delivering on their words in the Budget.

[Mr Redwood]

I wish to correct the record. I made it very clear that if a company were evading tax, we should throw the book at them and get the money back.

[Clive Efford]

My point is that that was the sum total of the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution on that subject. He then elaborated on other issues. The point is that the thrust of the amendment is evasion—people working the system in a way that breaches the rules and means that they do not make the contributions that they should make. Those are the people we should bear down on. In my intervention in his speech, he accepted that there was such avoidance, and that those people should be dealt with. It is how we scrutinise that that we are discussing now. It is the function of this House to hold the Government to account, and the amendment asks for a report to Parliament on what exactly the Government are doing.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on his amendment, and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say in response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Quite, and this is important. We could send a signal from this House that we, as politicians and representatives of the general public, believe that that particular industry has to pay back the cost it is has left upon the shoulders of the general public. Is it not always the case that the general public—the ordinary working people—have to dig us out of the hole created by those affluent and comfortable individuals who work in the banking system?

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because his probing is uncovering who is winning the arguments on the Government Benches. The Liberal Democrats went into the election calling for a 10% levy on banks, but the outcome is that what has been raised in the levy has more than been compensated for by the corporation tax cuts. We are seeing who is winning the arguments on the Government Benches on making the banks pay their fair share.

[Chris Leslie]

That is the case, and we have seen the glee with which the banking industry reacted after the Budget to this puny banking levy of less than 0.1% on the banks’ profit and asset base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I want to speak in support of amendment 50, which is tabled in my name and those of my colleagues. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on the manner in which he proposed his amendment. The broad thrust of the case that he seeks to probe and possibly to press to a vote later on—we do not know—is, I think, worthy of being probed. The House should obtain a great deal more information on the issue before we make a decision.

I have asked a large number of parliamentary questions on the subject and, more particularly, on the banking levy and the basis on which assessments have been made to set that proposed levy at the level at which it will be set. It is rather frustrating for many of us who wish to engage in the debate on corporation tax and to cross-reference it with the banking levy that both measures are not contained in the Bill. I understand, of course, that there will be a consultation on the banking levy before its implementation in January, and I am sure that the Minister will say that they could not both be contained in the Bill because it was proposed that the arrangements would be undertaken in such a manner. However, leaving aside the politics of the issue, the broad thrust of the argument, on which I understood that all parties were agreed, is that when we came to set the first Budget after the general election, those who dropped this country in it and caused the public finances to be in such a serious state would do most to help us to get out of it and to help to restore our public finances. We should be looking to those sectors that are most culpable to make the greatest contribution.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right to conclude that what we should seek to achieve in the Budget is that those who can afford it most should contribute most, with the vulnerable protected. Although I do not want to return to a Second Reading-type debate and to relate this measure to all the other measures and to the public spending re-profiling or cuts that are due in the autumn, on which we are to get more detail, that is the context in which this issue has to be considered.

Amendment 50 is remarkably similar to amendment 34, tabled by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I tabled amendment 50 because we need to probe and fully understand the likely impact of the banking levy and the corporation tax cut on the banking sector. We need a better assessment of that. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Nottingham East, in response to proper and reasonable questions about the relationship between the impact of the bank levy, as opposed to that of the corporation tax cut, on the banking sector was unable to give a quantifiable answer. That is because the Treasury do not provide one. In the responses to the questions that I have asked on the issue, that relationship has not been clear. That is why it would be better for us to say honestly that if we are properly going to come to a measured conclusion, it would be far better to have the best possible estimates of the likely impact of both measures beforehand, so that we can measure one against the other and make a proper, balanced and reasonable assessment of the impact at the end of the process.

I do not wish to delve into the party politics of what people said and did not say prior to the election, although that adds to the excitement and interest in this Chamber, but the Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), was right in predicting a lot of what needed to happen and in encouraging the then Government to take the action that they ultimately took on Northern Rock and in relation to other interventions. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to place the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats together in the previous Parliament as taking the same line on the issue. As a candidate in the last general election, I was particularly keen that we went into it seeking to ensure that the banking sector made a significant contribution to restoring the public finances. I was looking forward to that, and I was very pleased to see the banking levy in the Budget, along with a large number of other measures, such as raising personal allowance and the pension guarantee; the Liberal Democrats were pleased to see those. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that one thing that came out the day after the Budget was the sense that the banking sector was breathing a sigh of relief.

[Clive Efford]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman in advance for going back to what was said during the general election, but it is important in this context. The Liberal Democrats said that they were in favour of a banking levy, as he has just said, but they went further and said that it would be in addition to corporation tax. What we are debating is corporation tax that compensates the banks for the levy, cancelling it out. How can he possibly defend that position?

[Andrew George]

I am a free-ranging Liberal Democrat Back Bencher and I am quite clear that I want to probe this issue. I tabled my amendment because I want to ensure that we have the facts before we make what I hope will be a balanced decision on this important issue. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will sidestep the tribal arguments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

No, I am sorry, we do not admit that. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make or whether when he went into the general election in May, he had on his election leaflets, “Yes, we will be tough on banks for the rhetoric in the lead-up to the election, but if we get into power we will do a con trick where we take the money with one hand and gave it back with the other.” If, as the hon. Member for St Ives said, we do not know what the figures are, that makes it worse. We are asking the public to take severe cuts in public services and higher taxation, while at the same time the people who are still being paid high bonuses will get money back. That was reflected in a comment made earlier about the increase in bank share prices that took place once the Budget had been announced.

[Clive Efford]

To correct the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), it is just not true to say that the banks are going to pay more. Deutsche Bank has said:

“Taking 2% off the 2012 tax rate for the five banks listed in the UK would increase profit by £1.16bn, that is it should almost offset all of the banks tax. Overall a good outcome for the banks.”

Similarly, HSBC said:

“We’d expect most domestically-orientated banks, for example Lloyds, to be better off after four years than they were pre-budget”.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which completely blows a hole in the myth that this coalition Government are somehow being tough with the banking sector. Not for the first time, we are seeing rhetoric overtaking reality. The spin and presentation that is the hallmark of the Prime Minister is clearly catching up with him now he is in power and able to help his friends in the financial sector.

This policy also has an effect in terms of the banking sector itself, because the banks that are being rewarded are the ones that got us into the mess in the first place. Most people will rightly be horrified by that prospect.