HM Revenue and Customs

George Mudie Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) for his kind remarks. When Lord McFall left the Treasury Committee, no one thought its work could be kept at the same level, but I think that it has improved—that is, if one can improve on Lord McFall’s performance. As Chairman, the hon. Gentleman has already gained the respect—even the fear, I think—of witnesses appearing before the Committee, which is a good sign. He also serves a useful purpose for me, because when I go on one of my northern, regional rants, he will translate it for the southern gentlemen before us, and I sometimes get an answer.

As expected, the hon. Gentleman has dealt with this issue on a policy level that I could not match. I take a more pragmatic view towards the department, because although there is an argument for having a look at policy—tax definitely needs simplifying—we should not necessarily do things at that level to suit a vehicle that is dysfunctional; rather, we should ensure that the vehicle is functional. At the moment, I fear that the department is in a disappointing state. To give some background, we on the Treasury Committee, and on the Treasury Sub- Committee under the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), see HMRC every year, and we have had one or two inquiries over the years. In 2006, the Committee published a report on the efficiency programme. We identified concerns that reductions in the headcount were leading to falling service standards, and we made certain recommendations. We have returned to that issue in our current inquiry—we are halfway through it—into the same subject as this debate, and we have sadly discovered that nothing has been done along those lines. Indeed, in our 2009 review of administration and expenditure in the Chancellor’s Department, we noted

“a 7% increase in total recorded customer complaints”.

We asked HMRC to square that with its submission that strong progress had been made.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

The latest figure from HMRC is that complaints have gone up by 33% in the last two years, so the hon. Gentleman’s figures are a bit light.

[Mr Mudie]

They probably are, but the report that I am quoting is a couple of years old.

The other thing that we highlighted—the hon. Member for Chichester referred to this—were the dire results for HMRC of a cross-government staff survey. We expressed deep concern about employee engagement at HMRC and its effect on performance, along with the severely low morale, which has been referred to. What that amounts to is this. The problem could be a passing phenomenon, but it is not. It has been consistent for a number of years and it has to be faced up to. What are the reasons for it? We cannot move away from that dismal performance without accepting that severe staff cuts in the department are a major—if not the major—contributory factor. The work force has gone down by 30% since 2005. There might be some excuse in that the merging of two departments—Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue—provides scope for rationalisation, but not for losing 30% of the staff. There is worry that with the spending review, another £2 billion might be taken out—or £3 billion, with £900 million going back. In addition to seeing those 30,000 jobs, another £2 billion is to be taken out of its resources, and we cannot anticipate a better performance in the years ahead.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

I am hearing rumours that some people threatened with redundancy are earning £20,000 to £25,000 a year, yet the work they do saves the Treasury hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. Surely that does not make any sense either?

[Mr Mudie]

That is a well-accepted fact. To be fair, the £900 million is an acceptance of what my hon. Friend says. Theoretically or on paper, this money is going back to bring in £7 billion-worth of tax that has not been collected for one reason or another. I would like the Minister to deal with the phasing of that £7 billion. As usual with the Treasury, this can be read any way. I know that we culminate with this £7 billion, but what are the targets for the years ahead?

The computer has also contributed to demoralisation in the Department. It is not just the computer, but the man in Whitehall who thinks that the computer is the answer, because pressing a button produces something and it does not argue back. As we have discovered elsewhere in government, that simply does not work under any circumstances. The Revenue saw the computer as an answer to its problems with the budget cuts and thought that the staff could be taken out. They were removed before the computer was up and running, before it became operational and proved to be defective. That is why we had the debacle at Christmas 18 months ago of millions of taxpayers receiving an unexpected and largely unwelcome envelope. I grant that some might have been welcome, but they were mostly unwelcome.

The 30,000 jobs are gone, but I have yet to mention the merger. It was particularly important for staff morale, because at the same time this brilliant Department—I suppose it was the Treasury—brought in McKinsey to do its thinking, and it ended up adopting a French model of “départements”. There were 36 such departments inside the organisation, which meant no joining together of the two departments with their great traditions and ethos, and no welding together of the best bits from both. Instead, the departments were broken up—everybody was broken up—and there were no lines of accountability or anything like that. It was a complete shambles. Steps have been taken to put that right, but some of the damage persists, which is another contributory factor. That is what has happened. It is not possible to take out 30,000 people, have a merger or reorganisation, load in additional work and duties and expect it all to work. It is not working; something has to be done about it.

The hon. Member for Chichester touched on the issue of taxpayers. When the new computer came in, as usual somebody in Whitehall said, “It is wonderful to have this computer in London, so we can shut some offices”—and they gaily did so. On paper that meant saving staff, costs and so forth. The trouble is that tax is a very complicated issue. The best of us—I say this because I am among them—simply cannot handle tax and the details relating to it. Two or three years ago I decided that my accountant was too expensive, and took over the job of filling in the forms myself. In the first year, I received £300 back; in the second year I was charged £1,500. Now I am back with my accountant.

The difficulties involved in dealing with tax are a fact of life. The closure of tax offices has been a disaster, along with the cuts in working hours and days. We have reached a stage in public life, at both local authority and national levels, when call centres may seem to be the answer but are really—I suspect—a way of placing a brick wall between the decision-makers and the public. They can be helpful when dealing with ordinary questions, but are often unhelpful when it comes to detailed matters such as tax. That is especially true when they are talking to the elderly and those for whom English is a second language. I am reminded of confused.com: call centres are unhelpful to anyone who is confused.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

The closure of tax offices is an important issue in north Wales. I hate to be parochial, but I represent an area in which about 20% of the working population are self-employed. The need for self-employment is paramount in north Wales, because the economy is so fragile that unless we create our own job opportunities, we cannot work at all. Unfortunately, over the past few years we have seen the downgrading of the Porthmadog, Bangor and Colwyn Bay tax offices. The 20% of the working population who are self-employed must now travel to Wrexham and even over the border to be served, which is a big problem. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, when a small business is forced to use an accountant because it is unable to talk to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must have short interventions.

[Mr Mudie]

I am sorry that you stopped the hon. Gentleman, Mr Deputy Speaker, because his was a better speech than mine. I do not think that he needed to use the word “parochial”, or even to apologise if he thought that he was being parochial. In fact, he was being regional. Here in London, it is assumed that any region above Watford can be written off. The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely valid point.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who is sitting behind me, is a strong supporter of tax office staff. However, I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee about the number of telephone calls that are not answered. At one stage, the figure was 43%. One of the professional witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee said that an HMRC tax manager had been in his office and observed that it took 12 minutes for a call to be answered and seven minutes simply to change a tax code. That simple transaction took 20 minutes. That is a witness’s statement, and a very good one. I am sure that the Minister has read all the evidence given to the Committee, and has noted that that particular witness described his experiences brilliantly.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the two companies charged with this task by the Government, Capgemini and Accenture, have been at it for a decade. The system that they were asked to use a decade ago is not the system that they use now and is not capable of doing the job, although it is starting to throw up problems that we saw a couple of years ago. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that both companies’ contracts should be upgraded to a level that is appropriate to the 21st century?

[Mr Mudie]

That is an interesting point.

I am using up time rapidly, but let me mention in passing another feature of call centres. Telephoning 0845 numbers can be very expensive for pensioners—indeed, for everyone. The fact that people have to hold on for so long does not help, but in any case it is not the right way to decide complex matters. It is best for people to deal with those face to face. The best people in the whole business are the agents, as they are the professionals. They take the frustration and get angry about it—and they have given good evidence. The ordinary individuals are in the worst position, however. The professionals get used to things and can get on with other tasks, yet, as the professionals said, those who are not represented get the worst deal, and with office closures, cutting hours, and relying increasingly on telephone calls, e-mails and letters, the whole system knocks out a fair number of the population. That is what is happening. Plenty of Members want to speak, and they will spell out their constituents’ experiences.

Does the system need to be improved and will it be improved? I do not think it will, first because it goes against the grain—I will explain that. Sadly, every time witnesses from HMRC have appeared before us, they have been in a state of denial. If someone has a problem, there is no chance of their dealing with it unless they own up to it and accept it. I sympathise with them in a way, however. The hon. Member for Chichester said we are to blame and that is true; we are to blame, in particular the Ministers. It is hard for a civil servant to go before a Select Committee and say, “Yeah, I admit it; we can’t do this because we don’t have the people.”

We look for loyalty and a straight bat from civil servants, but the way we are doing things is not generally the best way to get a real dialogue. Therefore, when we have them before us in a couple of weeks, I am not sure that Dame Lesley will do anything other than give us the Geoff Boycott treatment, or even do a Pietersen and knock us out of the ground a couple of times. Because she and the management are in this state of denial, I cannot see things happening unless the Minister takes some steps. I really do think this comes down to staff and resources. Unless they are in place, we cannot load new jobs on.

Finally, let me describe a few points that should push the Minister to want to have a fresh look at resources. One of them is to do with what the Chairman of the Select Committee said about the integrity and reputation of the system, and real tax compliance in this country. If we frustrate and ignore people, and make it difficult for them to get explanations, one way or another, non-compliance will grow. There will be increasing disrespect for the system and the people in it, and a growing feeling that they are not here to help. The tax inspectors and staff are adamant that they are here to help however, and that has always been my experience at that level—when we can get to speak to someone, they are helpful.

If something is not done and we treat people in this way, they will respond in a manner that I think is natural, which is to say, “Get on with it”—I almost said “Sod it”—and “I am not complying.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We cannot say “Sod it.” I am sure the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that.

[Mr Mudie]

Well, I did withdraw it; I said I will not use the phrase “Sod it.”

I have made points about management being in denial and non-compliance. The next point is more current. We live in a time of austerity. It is a hard time and people’s wages and homes are being affected, yet the public are reading about Barclays paying £190 million on billions of pounds of profit, and about Vodafone being willing to pay £3 billion or £4 billion and having that available to pay to the Inland Revenue, but the Inland Revenue accepting £1.3 billion. This big multinational company is getting away with paying that amount of tax at a time when we are closing vital public services. We see Mr Green paying his wife through Monaco. In last Sunday’s papers, we read about a man with reputed wealth of £47 million being forced by someone he sacked to confess that he pays no tax at all because of the trust his father set up. Such stories are starting to resonate among ordinary people.

The Governor of the Bank of England came before the Treasury Committee yesterday, and at one stage in the evidence session he accepted that the anger we have witnessed in the past couple of years is nothing compared to what might happen when we see the real cuts, which are starting now. Last year, we talked a lot about cuts, but they amounted to only £6 billion. However, in Leeds recently, people invaded the council chamber when the budget was being fixed. There were people outside in wheelchairs whose benefits were being cut. Cuts were made to housing benefit. Students and trade unionists were also there. Some 1,000 jobs there are to go.

I genuinely say to the Government that a dangerous situation is brewing. A very affluent lady in America said, “Tax? That’s just for the little people.” That belief is starting to take hold in this country, as a lot of evidence shows. We need to get the tax people working properly. The tax gap is reckoned to be between £40 billion and £120 billion. We would not have these cuts if everybody paid their tax in a responsible fashion. That issue needs to be tackled, yet right now thousands of tax staff are being given their cards, when they could be dealing with it.

I want to finish by being helpful to the Minister. Another computer program is wending its way through the Department that has a crucial bearing on the Minister’s future. It deals with real-time initiatives and has very strict deadlines. It is for not only the Treasury but the Department for Work and Pensions, and it is a crucial factor in delivering the universal credit. I know that Treasury Ministers are very anxious to get universal credit in. To judge by past performance with computer systems, I wish the Minister luck. However, let me mark his card in this debate: all the signs from the Department are that, unless he gets a real grip and has a serious word with the Chancellor, that deadline will not be met. We are talking about not just one Whitehall Department negotiating a contract, but two, and when you put two Departments together, that leads, I fear, to trouble.

As an old friend of the Minister—we have worked together on the Treasury Committee and on other matters—I would not like that contract to be lost on his watch, and that is the third, and perhaps most compelling reason why he should do something about this problem.

Banking

George Mudie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

It is surprising. I noticed that in the shadow Chancellor’s rather extraordinary response there was no mention of lending. Indeed, I am not even sure what the Labour party’s plan is to get the banks to lend more and whether Labour Members welcome this move or not. I know for a fact that the previous Labour Government tried to negotiate a cross-bank agreement on gross lending, and failed. One would have thought, therefore, that they would welcome this, but they have not done so. My hon. Friend makes the good point that the key is to get lending to small businesses going, which is where the market failure has been over the past couple of years. That is absolutely crucial to our economic recovery.

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

Now that the Chancellor is into transparency on salaries, can he, as the largest shareholder in RBS, the bailed-out bank, tell the House whether it is true, as the Financial Times has suggested, that 100 bankers are earning more than £1 million? If not, how many are?

[Mr Osborne]

The transparency arrangements are the ones that I have set out, and the arrangements for managing RBS are the ones put in place by the Government of whom he was a Whip.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Mudie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. Indeed, last week I had a meeting with representatives of leading non-governmental organisations on this matter, and the Government are actively engaged at a European Union level to see how we can progress it. He raises a fair point.

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

T7. The Chancellor referred to the need for the regulator to have good judgment. Do Ministers think that the same regulator is using good judgment in all aspects of the retail and mortgage reviews?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the continued work load of the Financial Services Authority and its work on financial services. He and I would agree that we want better consumer outcomes from retail financial services, and that means that these areas should be reviewed very carefully. However, I am also certain that the outcome of the mortgage market review should take into account the stability of the housing market.

Autumn Forecast

George Mudie Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is certainly not the purpose of the measure and that tax avoidance is what we are going to seek to avoid. The measure is there to keep pace with the changes in corporate tax regimes that have been introduced in many other countries, not only Ireland, which we have just been talking about, but countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, which have also made corporate tax changes that attract international companies to headquarter there, rather than in the UK. We have to keep pace with those changes, which is why we are taking the measures that we are.

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

The Chancellor and the Business Secretary have apparently postponed the long-awaited growth White Paper. Officials say that this is because of the lack of serious content. Can the Chancellor tell us when we can expect this long-awaited document? In which financial year?

Independent Financial Advisers (Regulation)

George Mudie Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing the debate and on putting the case so comprehensively, in such detail and so fairly. This matter is a great problem, but it had gone under my radar as a Member of Parliament until a constituent of mine who is an independent financial advisor came to my surgery and explained what is happening. He falls into the category of being someone in his 50s who for the first time in 30 years is required to study for an examination to keep his job, regardless of how long he has been in the industry with a complaint-free record. I find that amazing.

As a member of the Treasury Committee, I have tried to aid the hon. Member for Wyre Forest—although he does not need aid—or at least stand alongside him to press for an investigation. I find it worrying that decisions can be taken by a regulator without recourse to the House, and almost without recourse to anyone. Last week, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, both the FSA and the Governor of the Bank of England came before the Committee, which was an opportunity—although we had a full agenda—to press the matter and question them.

The background against which the decision has to be judged is interesting. The FSA, rightly, admitted to many mistakes in the operation of its light-touch regulations. It was probably more open than the Bank of England, but that is another story. After Northern Rock, the FSA was very straightforward in meeting after meeting; it came clean and accepted criticism about light-touch regulation. However, Hector Sants decided in a policy speech to project a new image—from where, I do not know. He stated that in future financial firms would fear the FSA, but there is a pendulum effect. If something is released it tends to go too far in the other direction, and I rather fear that the FSA, in attempting to salvage its reputation—if it had one—has moved too far to demonstrate that it is not a soft touch as well as a light touch.

Members may think that I exaggerate. The FSA is undertaking two reviews; retail distribution is one and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned the other—the mortgage market review. If Members have not received many letters and e-mails about the RDR, there will certainly be anguished people contacting them when the full power of the MMR comes into effect and young first-time buyers who are self-employed find it difficult to get a mortgage.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

It is not just that the FSA has not listened to the industry or its professionals, which will undoubtedly damage the profession. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the really foolish thing, which is just as serious, is that it will profoundly damage the interests of the consumer? Yet the FSA seeks to protect the consumer.

[Mr Mudie]

I completely agree.

I forgot to congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest on securing the debate and on introducing it. I also congratulate all Members in the Chamber. It appears that the only thing we can do is to come to the Chamber and voice our anger and concern. When the Committee discussed with the Bank of England the new powers of the new regulator, it was the British Bankers Association, of all people, who raised the democratic deficit. The point was made that we were handing so much power to the regulators and the banks that there was great danger that they would be pronouncing and taking action on matters that affect us as representatives of our constituents —matters relating to employment and standards of living. In our humility and generosity, we are passing great power to the regulators on matters for which we will be accountable—perhaps not in law, but in the view of the public. We will be accountable for the actions of the regulators, so a rethink is very necessary.

[Alun Cairns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on initiating the debate. I congratulate them on that.

Does the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) accept that the FSA could be acting in the context of, on the one hand, lack of regulation in the banking industry in the past, leading to a complete knee-jerk reaction and, on the other, disproportionate regulation at the consumer end of the market, such as the debate is highlighting?

[Mr Mudie]

I do not completely agree. I think the banks could be the beneficiaries if 30,000 independent financial advisers are taken out of the market. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest referred to Lord Turner, whose attitude was that the number would not be 30,000, but between 10,000 and 20,000, which was acceptable, otherwise the FSA would not be doing it. There was no explanation why the number was acceptable, or of the unintended consequences of the decision. The authority had just decided that it would be acceptable.

Ordinary people who have worked in the industry for decades will be hurt by the decision. It is not a knee-jerk response to oppose the direction of a decision and the manner in which it is being imposed on individuals who have worked in the industry without blemish. It would not happen in other industries and other practices. In addition, there seems to be a lack of interest in the diminution of choice for the ordinary consumer of all ages if the decision is forced through.

The Treasury Committee has asked for responses. I plead with every Member, whether or not they are in the Chamber, to do some writing and complain. They should ask the very able Chairman of the Committee, who is standing by the Speaker’s Chair, to call a review meeting so that we can call individuals on this subject. We do not want to tie it up in a long agenda where it receives only 10 minutes’ scrutiny; we want a full meeting where witnesses are placed under real scrutiny and asked both to account for the decision and to reconsider it.

Banking Reform

George Mudie Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I compliment the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) on a thoughtful speech. At one point, I disagreed with him and at other points I found myself very pleased with the sentiments that he expressed. The Backbench Business Committee deserves congratulation for tabling the motion and I hope we will have more opportunities to discuss the subject in Government time. We must reach consensus if we are to get this right.

I worry, particularly against the background of what is happening in Ireland, that we are going too slowly. There was an argument in the beginning that we should not do things in haste and that was sensible, but three years on from the time Northern Rock went down we should be starting to implement some of the measures, not merely discussing them. I know that there is an international context, but on the domestic front we should be further forward than we are.

The Government’s amendment mentions matters such as “regulatory architecture” and “prudential regulation”, both of which are part of the package that is going through the Select Committee on the Treasury and that will eventually come to the Floor of the House. I am not sure that they alone will matter. Basel III, according to the Governor of the Bank of England, “won’t prevent another crisis”. I think that is fair.

So, Basel III, regulatory architecture and prudential regulation are what the Government initially—certainly in this low-key debate—are putting forward as important. They are secondary to an acceptance by those who are in the banks and who own the banks of the fact that they need regulating and that they should share the objectives of the regulators. Sadly, in the past three years I have not seen any signs that that has been accepted at a senior level in the banks. If we were to look for one person, organisation or thing that started or caused the crisis, we would be wrong, but central to it were the banks’ securitisation exercises and adventures, which paralysed the whole financial structure and the wholesale markets. They must be accepted as a major part of where we are now and of what we have gone through.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The last bank bail-out—for the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB and HBOS—cost £37 billion and we were told that there would be conditions on staff bonuses, but nothing has happened in the past three years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things that annoys people the most is the bonuses that go to staff members when the banks are not doing their job?

[Mr Mudie]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point which links with a point I was about to make. I have described the regulatory structure. There are differences between regulators throughout the western world, but the fact that they were all caught out shows that structure is secondary and that changes to structure alone will not prevent another crisis. We have all been affected despite those different structures, so one cannot attack regulatory structures or see them as a salvation. I regard such restructuring as simply rebuilding the Maginot line: it shows the public that we are doing something, that we are hard at work and that there is something concrete, but when it comes to effectiveness, it would suffer from the same deficiencies as the original Maginot line, so I do not think that structure matters.

If the banks, the bankers and their shareholders do not accept that they have to change their practices then what do we have? We have no regret from the banks and no acceptance that they played a part in events. Let us consider their behaviour over bonuses.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mudie]

Let me finish my point and I certainly will. The behaviour of the banks over bonuses at the senior level is obscene and offensive to every one of our constituents. At a meeting on Saturday morning, I spoke to someone whose wife works for Halifax. She is going to lose her job. If one speaks to people in every part of the community one finds that they are looking forward to 2011 with great worry and concern because more than 100,000 of them are going to lose their job in the public services alone.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mudie]

Excuse me for a second. Given the amount of money that the state has pumped into the banks to rescue them, it is unacceptable that bankers and senior bankers still, at this stage in the game, demand obscene bonuses at levels that many people could never think of earning even when they have worked all their life. That shows a state of mind that is not exactly right. We hear that if all that does not work, Bob Diamond will take business away from the UK. What on earth is the point of spending time building up a regulatory structure if that is the attitude? For safety, I join the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) in thinking that Glass-Steagall is a good alternative, but unfortunately for us both, as we move in that direction the Governor of the Bank of England seems to be moving in the opposite direction. We can never pin that man down, can we? I think that is the direction we should go in.

In the minute that remains, I shall explain the reasons other than safety why I support a move in that direction. I know that this might mark me out as old-fashioned, but I want the retail banks to go back to the fine role that they have historically played in financing individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises. That was their function and they did it very well, but that has been lost because the emphasis has shifted to the investment side of banking. If we are talking about rebalancing the economy, the engine for growth must be the banks. If we can get them to move across to their old role and let the investors go off and play their casino games, our real interests will be satisfied because we will get people in the financial world to focus on the productive side of the economy.

Financial Assistance (Ireland)

George Mudie Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As I say, a bilateral loan will be debated in this House and require the Government to take primary powers, so it is within the control of all Members, and we are accountable to the taxpayers of Britain for that. I have explained the situation, so I will not go over it again, but we are part of the European mechanism, which involves a qualified majority vote, and even if we had exercised a no vote we would have been completely outvoted. That is why I want to see that the UK is not part of the permanent bail-out mechanism, which will be discussed at the December Council.

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

We are contributing to the IMF deal and to the stability mechanism deal. Is the £7 billion additional to that, or is it broken up between those two with a topping-up sum?

[Mr Osborne]

I am not going to give a specific figure today, because it simply has not been agreed as part of the overall package with the Irish. In these situations, it is perfectly normal for the sovereign Government, in this case the Irish, to invite the IMF and the EU in and to ask for their help, and for that to be negotiated over the following week or two. Of course, we will be part of that, but as I say, I expect the UK’s support to be in the billions, not the tens of billions.

PAYE Contributions

George Mudie Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the stresses and strains that HMRC has had to deal with has been the complexity of the tax system. If we can address that, we can establish a simpler PAYE system and reduce the demands placed on HMRC so that it can focus on these very matters.

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

It would be a disservice to the many millions of people affected—certainly the 1.4 million who are being chased for repayments—if we allowed this matter to be passed over in gaining party political points on either side. [Laughter.] It is not amusing to the 1.4 million people. The report says that it was the Minister who noticed the disparity in the figures and asked for a review. The result is sad, but I commend him for uncovering the problem. This issue raises important questions, and that is why party political point scoring would be wrong. It is not the first debacle from this department. As the Minister looks into it, can the House expect some resignations or disciplinary action in respect of the highly paid chairman and chief executive and board?

[Mr Gauke]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has consistently raised concerns about HMRC. In my view, we need to focus on moving forward. The fundamental problem is the PAYE system and the inability, over many years, to bring it into the 21st century. In my view, the days of Treasury Ministers throwing staplers around should be past. We need to work with HMRC constructively to ensure that we have an improvement in our tax system.

Office of Tax Simplification

George Mudie Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I think that we are going to achieve something very important, with good value for money for the taxpayer—and I think that will be a hallmark of this Government.

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

To prove to the House the independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Chancellor finally conceded that the appointment of its chair would be subject to the agreement of the Treasury Committee. If the so-called independent OTS is actually to be so, will the same arrangements be considered for the appointment of its chair?

[Mr Gauke]

We have not taken a view on that yet. We have to understand what the role of the OTS will be—to publish recommendations that will be, by necessity, in the public domain. People can debate those matters, which we think is a valuable purpose in itself. Whether the Treasury Committee needs to endorse every appointment made by the Government is a debate that we should have.

Finance Bill

George Mudie Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. It is important that we ensure that all our liabilities are properly covered, so that the cost of our individual failings or mishaps does not fall on the general taxpayer. Responsible individuals have to insure themselves.

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

My hon. Friend says that people do not shop around. Does he agree that any process of shopping around is not helped by the way in which insurance companies sign people up to policies on standing orders with small print that allows that policy to be renewed without consulting the customer? Even if the customer wishes to change their policy because of a large increase in their premiums, they can discover that the small print means that they have to let the policy run because they are required to give notice.

[Chris Leslie]

That particularly pernicious practice merits much closer scrutiny. I do not know whether it is allowed to happen because of a legal loophole. People face dangers when they sign up to unending direct debits, especially if they have been attracted to an insurance policy because of a discounted initial arrangement but then discover that the payments have been ramped up. By the time they realise, from their bank statement or whatever, that the cost is so much more, it is too late to exit from the policy. I hope that any practices that tie customers in to such policies unnecessarily can be stopped.

Insurance premium tax was, of course, a Conservative initiative, introduced back in 1993, I think. We are all concerned about the deficit and revenues, so reluctantly we all have to accept the tax as part and parcel of our general revenue stream, but it is worth pausing to reflect on the impact of the charge on the behaviour of customers who want to take out insurance. Of course, there are different effects for different types of insurance. The amendments highlight both ends of the scale.

I am not sure that I share the sympathy for amendment 18 on private health insurance, because the general public already effectively pay for health cover through the tax that they pay towards the NHS; that is far and away the best health insurance that all of us could want. If we are all part of that, and pool our resources effectively, we ensure a better quality of health care for ourselves. I hear the points made by Government Members, who say that private health insurance removes the burden from the NHS, but if we are all part of the system together, and make sure that we all take part in it, we have a better collective service.