Finance (No. 3) Bill

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

This is a very useful debate. I particularly enjoyed the three well-informed and well-evidenced speeches on energy policy and the implications of the proposed tax changes for the North sea. A bit of my past tempts me to follow the theme of energy, but instead, I shall talk about the impact of the Budget decisions and statements, and of the Bill, on aspects of social security.

Welfare states across the world, not least in Europe, are in many respects on the defensive and under political attack. They are in difficulties because of demography—the ageing of our populations—and the impact of the economic situation on public finances, but also because of a loss of confidence in parts of public opinion in the foundation stones underlying our welfare states.

I shall ask two questions of the Budget. The first is on the future of our national insurance system and the crucial contributory principle, and secondly, I want to address whether we are wholly right to pursue the policy, which we are now doing quite rapidly, of raising the age at which our people can claim old age pensions in the light of increasing life expectancy.

On the contributory principle, I would welcome Ministers’ comments on paragraph 1.77 of the Red Book, which states:

“The Government believes that integrating the operation of income tax and National Insurance Contributions…can remove distortions, reduce burdens on business and improve fairness.”

However, what are the likely impacts of that on the contributory principle? To be fair—I want to be fair, because I do not think that I am making a partisan point—the Government say that they

“will maintain the contributory principle”,

which I welcome, but how can we bring about that administrative change, which presumably affects people of different age groups and income levels differently, while maintaining the contributory principle? That is a genuine question to which I am seeking an answer.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman touches on the important point of the contributory principle, but does he agree that the longer-term project of amalgamating national insurance and Inland Revenue contributions would at least do away with the nonsense of reducing the amount that people pay in income tax while increasing the amount that they pay in national insurance contributions, and of selling that as a policy of reducing the amount that they pay?

[Malcolm Wicks]

Such policies have regressive implications and I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question—a not dissimilar one could be asked of VAT contributions. Deeply regressive changes to how we gather money in from the wider community are taking place.

Although the contributory principle has for many years, and arguably for several decades, been withering away—it certainly looks tired and rusty—we need it in the 21st century. One reason why is that if we are to maintain our broader welfare state and social security system as an instrument for redistribution and for tackling the emerging needs of this century, not least those associated with long-term care and the ageing of our population, we need an ethical foundation to underlie social security, rather than bits-and-pieces mechanisms that can be hard to communicate to a wider public.

One basic concept in that respect is that of citizenship. What is it to be a citizen in the 21st century? What are our rights as citizens? Equally importantly, what are our duties and responsibilities? For me, in moving from that simple piece of social philosophy into policy mechanisms that work, we would do away with or neglect the social insurance contributory principle at our peril. That principle says that when people are able to work and to contribute to that community chest, they should do so. That is a duty. However, as of right as citizens, people should be able, at certain times in their life cycles or at times of social need, to draw out not means-tested benefits, but benefits that they have earned through their contributions.

Of course, that was the principle underlying the Beveridge report—that great Liberal—and the one that the 1945 Attlee Government sought to introduce after the war. I am arguing that we should today try to bring about a renaissance of belief in that principle, and to make it an underlying concept of our social security system.

The principle is well understood historically. Long before the advent of the modern welfare state in the 20th century, there were friendly societies, building societies and co-ops, and trade unions emerged. It was well understood that members had rights, but also that they had duties and responsibilities. People paid contributions to trade unions and building societies—interestingly, that was in the early days, when building societies actually built houses—and to friendly societies. As of right, they could then draw benefits when eligible.

It is no coincidence that when we wander through Members Lobby, we see great statues of pioneers of the national insurance system. We could even argue which party has done most for social insurance, as it used to be called, or national insurance. Churchill can lay claim to have done much of the work in the pre-war years, and Lloyd George had more than a hand in it, as did Clement Attlee and his 1945 Government. Our entitlements to claim social security, and our rights and duties, are not simply technical matters that should be detailed somewhat obscurely in social security manuals, but a social philosophy foundation stone that folk in this country can understand as fair.

Of course, the national insurance system as devised in the modern era by the Beveridge report and the Attlee Government was not perfect. Rightly, it was subjected to critique by women’s organisations and feminists, who said that it had more to say about a typical man’s life cycle than a woman’s. Past Governments have done their best to rectify the inadequacies of the system when a mother leaves her career, which happened for quite a long period in the past, to care for her children, and to deal with what happens to the insurance contributions of family carers, who are usually but not always women, who have had to leave the labour market. Labour Governments and others have done their best to modernise the national insurance system, but not with total success. I am therefore saying, not that the principle of national insurance has worked perfectly historically, but that it is a basis on which we should build.

One of the biggest difficulties with national insurance over recent years has been that increasingly our friends in the Treasury—both Ministers and officials—have regarded national insurance as just another form of taxation. To be blunt I would point my finger at Labour Governments as well as Conservative Governments. The Treasury has lost sight of the Beveridge report and the philosophy of citizenship. When considering how to raise revenue, it tends to ask, “What share should come from income tax, corporation tax or VAT, and what share should come from the national insurance system?” That is illustrated by the fact that when, a while ago, the two major parties were having that ding-dong—that argument—about whether extra revenue should be raised by VAT or national insurance, that is how it was viewed. There was very little in that debate about what national insurance should be about and how it should relate to a modern social security system. One reason why the contributory principle has grown rather tired-looking is a failure of communication and presentation. Governments have not gone out there to argue, as I hope to do—albeit inadequately—that social insurance and the contributory principle remain valid foundation stones for this aspect of our social policy.

The other aspect of the contributory principle I want to raise concerns the plans set out by the Department for Work and Pensions and, in particular, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), to move towards a far simpler state pension system in which everyone would be guaranteed a certain state pension. On paper, that looks like an interesting concept. I understand that, in theory, everyone is in favour of greater simplicity, but let us consider the matter in relation to the social insurance principle. I am alarmed by bits in the DWP document, “A State Pension Age for the 21st Century”, which was mentioned in the Budget. Although it states that in the future people should get the new simple pension after 30 years of qualifying, which addresses the issue about women—so far so good—it seems to imply, unless I have seriously misunderstood it, that no one would get more than a pension to which they had contributed for 30 years.

The Government are at pains to tell us that more and more people will have long life expectancies and will work longer in the labour market. What happens, therefore, to those who work 40 or 50 years? I might have misunderstood, but I was alarmed by paragraph 96 of the document, which reads under the heading, “Impact on individuals”:

“Groups who would expect to build up more significant amounts of State Second Pension, such as those with longer working lives and higher earners, would not be able to do so under this option.”

Well, why not? Is there not a danger of being so besotted with the idea of simplicity that we undermine the idea that if someone contributes more through their working life because they are working harder, they should be able to get more out of it at the end through a decent state pension scheme? I have serious concerns about that. Although there are many doubting Thomases in respect of social insurance, we must bear in mind the principles underlying it, such as citizenship and its common-sense nature: people can understand that they should make a contribution when they can and draw out of a community pot when they need to. If we sacrifice those things, we sacrifice a lot in our social security system.

I want to touch briefly on a matter that relates to a paper I published on my website last week. I question whether we are in the right place when it comes to raising the state pension age in the light of increasing life expectancy. May I say first and foremost that I am signed up—not least as a former pensions Ministers—to the reality of increasing life expectancy for most people. It cannot be right that we stick to state pension ages and occupational pension ages devised 40 or 50 years ago, given that more and more of us—hopefully—will live into our 80s and 90s.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have always been a very practical person. I ran my own successful business for some 25 years before handing the work over to my son. I am the first to acknowledge that in order to spend money one must have money coming in as well, because if one does not have that, one does not have a business. I live in the real world in the area that I represent, with unemployment and bills, and with families struggling and businesses barely surviving. I fully grasp the very tenuous financial position that we find ourselves in as we try to claw our way out of the deficit. I accept that Government, the coalition, and all of us together have to be involved in that and make a contribution towards it.

I welcome the range of packages that the coalition has brought forward through the Bill, which will directly help the lower paid. That is positive, and I am glad to see it. The national insurance contribution holiday is also a positive move. However, I feel that I have to comment on behalf of people who may not always see the benefit of these measures—those to whom I have spoken over the past week in anticipation of this debate, who have concerns and have asked me to convey them in the House tonight. I understand that this further tax hike is a blow to some of the people I represent—the middle classes and the self-employed. They see it as such, and I have to say so. The rise in national insurance for employers and employees will dissuade some employers from offering additional hours.

A perhaps forgotten and ignored issue is the impact on the morale of people in such businesses who do not see the benefit in the proposals before us. There is no better way of illustrating a case than taking an example from my own constituency. Just in the past few days, I had the opportunity to speak to a young married couple who have two children. They are both working. They are not entitled to housing benefit, so some years ago they bought their own house, and they have a fairly large mortgage. For them, the cost of living has increased dramatically. The husband is self-employed, and he cannot raise his prices in line with the prices coming in, because then he would not have any business. Indirect taxation has risen, and risen again. His business has suffered because people simply do not have the money to decorate their homes, which is what he does. The wife received a rise, with the additional pressure and workload that came with it, yet they find that being on the borderline of the new tax threshold means that they are scarcely better off. They are just on the wrong side of that tax threshold. The frustration they expressed to me demonstrated the sobering reality of how some people see the future of their business.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

People such as my hon. Friend’s constituents are looking forward to the increase in personal allowances to which the Government are now committed, which is a good thing. However, given the increase in national insurance contributions, the anomaly is that such people will find it even more difficult to move out of recession.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which are very positive. I think that if everyone sat down for a moment and looked at their own constituency, we could all replicate this situation everywhere across the whole United Kingdom.

The couple who came to see me did not have any help when their boiler broke, their car broke down, or the heating bills came in: they had to manage all that themselves. That puts things into perspective. They did not ask for a handout, or believe that they were entitled to one. They simply asked me whether I could do something, as the Member for Strangford, to represent their viewpoint in this Chamber, and that is what I intend to do. This is an example of the low morale of a hard-working family who feel that they are swimming against the current. I would always caution that we should ensure at all times that people feel that it is better to work, and these people have that work ethic, which is good news.

I know that Government Members will say that this is “only” a 1% increase in national insurance contributions, and that is true. Let us remember, though, that it is to be coupled with an increase in university fees. It must also be coupled with an increase in tax on oil, which results in higher petrol and diesel costs across the whole United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland. We have the highest price for diesel and petrol in the whole UK, and the VAT increase in January will add to the price hikes and the pressure on families.

As a balanced individual who can see the good element in the Bill, I point out that the fact that new businesses will get help with their first 10 employees’ contributions is good news. However, I have to ask: what about the small and medium-sized businesses that are currently struggling, such as the one run by the couple I mentioned? To them, a £2,000 bonus would be the incentive to keep pouring their energy into their business. Many other businesses in my area would love to have that opportunity as well. I ask the Economic Secretary whether there is any scope for businesses that have opened in the past few years to avail themselves of help that could save businesses and jobs, and subsequently ensure that their revenue continues to go into the contributions pot.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) hit upon an issue that other Members have also mentioned, and I agree with her comments. I believe that small and medium-sized businesses need help. I do not believe that that can be done through the Bill, but I would like them to receive some contribution and help as a next stage. Perhaps the Economic Secretary will indicate whether and how that can be done, and on what time scale. It is imperative that we in this House have a full grasp of what is intended in the next period, so that we can go back to our constituents and let them know.

It is not in my nature to oppose anything simply for the sake of it. That is not how I work. However, I honestly believe that many people are on the brink, and I have to say so. Consideration must be given to small and medium-sized businesses and those with a small number of workers. I know that money has to be raised and that someone has to provide it. That is the purpose of the debate. What I do not know is why it has to be the same people who provide it all the time. That is what has happened. The self-employed, the middle class, and small and medium-sized enterprises that exist today must all be part of the equation. On behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and of my constituency in particular, I ask the Economic Secretary to consider those matters fully.

Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The crisis reminds us of the continuing focus on sovereign debt. The Government have taken clear measures to tackle our fiscal problems, and international bodies have recognised that. It is one of the reasons for Standard & Poor’s reporting our credit rating as stable compared with its negative outlook under the previous Government. We are taking the right steps to secure our fiscal position, bearing in mind that the crisis in Ireland is around banking, not the fiscal position.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

It is in no one’s interests for the Irish Republic’s economy to go down even further, but taxpayers in the United Kingdom are worried that the Irish Republic could be next, followed by Portugal, Spain and Italy, and that the full and true extent of what we might have to pay is not known.

Tax Avoidance

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I welcome the Front-Bench speakers to the debate. I have a high degree of respect for them both and I hope that between us, in this relatively informal environment, we can start the ball rolling on what is a serious topic for this Parliament: tax avoidance.

Let me put the Minister at ease by saying that I am not going to discuss the capital gains tax proposal or any of the media coverage of it. It is a key aspect of the coalition agreement. All I will say is that the thrust for change comes from the desire to close a loophole that allows for tax avoidance, where people receive economic rewards as capital rather than income so as to avoid higher rates of taxation. Obviously, that is a move for the privileged few that potentially costs the Exchequer millions. Recently, there have been both decent and some dodgy arguments in the media about the mooted capital gains tax proposals. I am prepared to acknowledge that a number of sensible points have been made apropos the need to encourage long-term investment rather than short-term gain, and the need to privilege savers above speculators. There has been much learned discussion about tapers, capital relief and so on. I remain fairly sanguine about the matter and will leave the Minister to his pre-Budget deliberations—provided that, within the coalition, we do not lose the essential goal of successfully attacking tax-avoiding abuse.

Tackling tax avoidance is important to the coalition, particularly in the present circumstances. If the central problem of this Parliament is reducing the structural deficit, there are essentially not two but three ways to help to do that: we can cut spending, which none of us wants to do unless necessary; we can increase taxation, which none of us wants to do unless necessary; or we can ensure that tax revenues are more often and more efficiently collected and not avoided, which all of us would be perfectly happy to do were it the panacea for all our ills. Unfortunately, in the present circumstances, it is not.

If the coalition is not ruthless in its pursuit of avoidance and evasion, now more than ever, we will stand accused of harming or at least being indifferent to the industrious and needy, to the advantage of the devious and the privileged few. That is scarcely fair or in line with the themes announced by the coalition of fair taxation and fair reward. So far in the history of this Parliament, little has been said by the Government about tax avoidance. I understand that the Minister has answered a few questions, both oral and written, but by and large he has given answers that I would describe as holding answers that refresh the position that we understand to be in place—that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not take lightly the matter of tax avoidance and there is a big gap to be plugged. There is a big gap, because potentially large sums are to be obtained by a clampdown. The Treasury estimates the tax gap of tax avoided or evaded to be about £40 billion. The Tax Justice Network—not uninformed people—gives a figure of £120 billion. The truth is probably that we do not know the precise figure, and perhaps we should split the difference.

The reality is that we have made some progress in getting large sums back to the Exchequer as a result of a serious attack on tax avoidance. That is to the credit of Ministers in the previous Government, who recognised that a serious attack was necessary. The figures for 2008-09 provided by the Treasury suggest that about £12 billion of extra revenue was collected because of the forthright approach taken to tax avoidance. The figure expected for 2010-11—the Minister will be able to tell us whether we get anywhere near it—is a whopping £16 billion. Those are significant sums.

A distinction is often drawn between avoidance and evasion. I do not want to trespass into the area of evasion, as that is a different issue, although at times it is quite difficult to define the difference. Somebody said that the only real difference or line between evasion and avoidance is the thickness of a prison wall.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Or an accountant.

[Dr Pugh]

It is a different sort of accounting, let us put it like that. Evasion characteristically involves not only non-compliance, but a breach of tax law and often an element of downright and explicit dishonesty. However, in truth, some forms of avoidance are almost equally morally reprehensible if looked at from an ethical point of view rather than a technical or legal one. We think of past abuses of charity law, which people have explicitly used to make a fast buck with no real benefit to charity, thereby bringing the whole business of charity law into disrepute. We think of a genuine unwillingness on the part of some members of society to pay towards the maintenance of the society that enables them to thrive—the free-rider mentality that is found in certain sections of society and business.

On the other side, we must recognise that we are talking about an industry that does not hang its head in shame. It is staffed by clever and well rewarded people who are dedicated to not what they would call tax avoidance—although it is that in a sense—but, to give it another name, tax planning. As tax law becomes more sophisticated, the economic instruments with which tax planning is arranged become ever more complex and, because of the global reach of the economy these days, ever more global.

The demands for such services are huge and appreciable. There are some well rewarded people in the City whose life is almost entirely dedicated to some form of tax avoidance or tax planning—whatever they want to call it—which they regard as an entirely legitimate enterprise. One should not be too pompous about this. Few people volunteer to pay more tax than is due, or avoid opportunities that come their way to defray their own tax burden. Some people are capable of availing themselves of clever, post hoc rationalisations that run along the lines of: if they spend the money rather than paying it in tax, it will be spent to greater social benefit. That is not a plausible argument, but it is a comforting moral argument if one’s conscience bends in that direction. Such people argue that they can spend their money better than the state can for the social benefit of people in their community. That is a bit of sophistry with which we need not detain ourselves.

Who has not had a discussion with a tradesman about paying in cash, while remaining completely oblivious to the consequences that might befall the Inland Revenue? Are we not sometimes encouraged by the state to modify our economic behaviour by being offered tax breaks and incentives?

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He touches on a matter that I have raised for many years. In areas of high unemployment, there is a tendency for the black economy to thrive. There is a tendency for small to medium-sized employers to employ people on the basis that he has just outlined, giving a cash payment of £100 or £150 per week for several hours per day or whatever. The raising of the income-tax level to £10,000, which the Liberal Democrats and my party have been advocating for some time, will help but not completely eradicate the desire of some to employ people on the side, in the black economy, for a few pounds per week, rather than doing it legitimately, which would raise more income for the state and bring people from the black economy into proper, better paid jobs.

[Dr Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the black economy needs a whole toolkit of approaches. I happen to have with me the report from the Public Accounts Committee entitled “Tackling the hidden economy”, which contains a number of rational, sensible and workable proposals, which will enable people to earn a living and at the same time pay taxation legitimately and fairly. Obviously the fairer the system is, the more prone people are to do that.

Tax avoidance properly, though, is the apparent attempt to frustrate the intent of tax law. That is fundamentally what it is. It is normally done by organising economic transactions in a way that ensures that whatever wealth, investment, profits, income or rewards people have or aim for, they escape the charge that the state would ordinarily impose on them. The state does not do that for idle purposes, but for the common good. Tax avoidance is therefore morally reprehensible. MPs flipped their homes and were rightly criticised in the media, but it was not the intention of the expenses scheme—or the capital gains tax regime, for that matter—to ensure that that would happen. People in this place availed themselves of a loophole. That is an almost classic case of tax avoidance, but one could give sundry examples, in various exotic formats.

The previous Government did an appreciable amount of work, endeavouring to ensure that tax avoidance, when spotted, gets dealt with. They fought what I would describe as a long guerrilla war against exactly what we are talking about: loopholes. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Mr Timms), who was a kind of platoon commander, for prosecuting that guerrilla war with some success. He tried to track down the loopholes and closed them where possible. I think that most hon. Members here, while reading through very dull tracts of successive Finance Acts, will have recognised that those provisions are there simply as part of the ongoing skirmishing between the tax planners—tax avoiders—and the Inland Revenue. By and large, however, what we have seen so far have been post hoc reactions to abuses that have been identified in charity law, with repo arrangements, or with controlled foreign companies—we had an awful lot of debate about controlled foreign companies in the last year of the previous Parliament, as well as stamp duty and other matters.

The Inland Revenue has been involved in constructing complex defences against complex devices and schemes. Quite frankly, even though we pretend to understand them properly as we sail through the Finance Act, many of the schemes are not adequately grasped by many Members. It used to amaze me how the right hon. Gentleman had command—or seemed to, at any rate—of some very complex schemes and some very complex remedies for them. The basic strategy, however, is one of shutting the door after the horse has bolted, which normally leads to those people who wish to persist with mechanisms for avoidance simply adjusting the scheme in some marginal way, modifying it and presenting a new scheme that leads to a new ad hoc adjustment, when it is spotted—it is, of course, not immediately spotted and cannot be dealt with retrospectively. Again, I am reminded of guerrilla war. It is rather like the US forces trying to deal with an ever-elusive Viet Cong that springs up around them in the jungle. My analogy slightly breaks down, however, when one recognises that the resources available to the people fighting that guerrilla war far exceeded those of the Government in this case.

The problem is therefore difficult to deal with, and is made immeasurably more complicated by the global reach of modern international capitalism, with the plethora of tax havens and the associated absence of transparency. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for having done a great deal of work on that. In the last few months of the previous Parliament, there was a slew of double taxation treaties that attempted to deal with precisely that problem, devised meticulously and with extraordinary detail by very clever people in the Treasury. Generally speaking, what we were hoping for—and sometimes got—was greater transparency and sharing of information, but again we were involved in the post hoc job of trying to close down complex tax arrangements that seemed to evade many jurisdictions when it came to the pursuit of tax liabilities. Interestingly, PricewaterhouseCoopers recently suggested that it would make it a heck of a lot easier if big international companies were to list in full their assets right across the piece on a global basis, and suggested that as a new standard for accountancy. I agree, but I think it fairly unlikely that many such companies will follow suit. Big organisations that keep their property arm in Liechtenstein or wherever will not be the first candidates for laying all their cards on the table.

It is worth making the point, in passing, that the British Exchequer is not the only loser here. A substantial amount of tax leakage is caused by people not paying tax in developing countries, and it is distressing to see organisations such as the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which was set up for laudable ends and with massive national and public support, putting an awful lot of money into development projects in the developing world, but having the money sourced or put through private equity companies, many of which are in offshore tax havens.