Finance Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

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

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

“The narrative”—those were the words used by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in response to the measure. We should remind ourselves that the narrative is that we are discussing employment-related tax treatments against a backdrop of a significant increase in employment and a significant decrease in unemployment. That goes to the heart of this whole debate. Employment is something that we all want to see expanding through the UK economy. Having started and run a small business and having recruited people to that business, I know that no employer recruits someone with the intention of kicking them out. I hope that that goes without saying, but I have said it nevertheless.

[Rachel Maclean]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a small business owner with just a couple of staff has to go through a lot of stress in the whole process of making someone redundant? We should not forget that small business owners are people as well, often quite low paid because they are sacrificing salary. That can lead to mental health issues, stress and anxiety.

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will respond to her point in a few moments, but it is a very important one and we must not overlook it.

We have had a jobs boom over the past few years, in stark contrast to many other developed economies around the world and across Europe, which has struggled. In particular, in the UK, which is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises and, indeed, microbusinesses, which often have only one or two principals and one or two employees, it is important that we continue to give confidence to those businesses, many of which do not have a large administrative back-office function. That is often the case, as it was in the business that I started. I was doing the client interaction and sales, and a colleague of mine was doing the journalism side of the business, but we were also the accountants and the HR department. To give confidence to small and microbusinesses that they can employ people, it is incredibly important that everything to do with employment is as simple and transparent as possible.

At the moment, the tax treatments around severance payments are very competitive. Depending on the combination of events, the payment can be taxed any one of a number of ways. Although I did not speak about this set of clauses on Second Reading, I did welcome the Bill, and I welcome this general move to simplify, to clarify and to give small businesses in particular—although of course this affects businesses of all kinds—the confidence to employ people, knowing that the HR and financial treatment around that employment will be as simple as possible.

The Opposition spokesman kept talking as though severance payments were not taxed at the moment, and of course they are. They are taxed—

[Anneliese Dodds]

indicated dissent.

[James Cleverly]

Above the £30,000 threshold, there are tax treatments. Through the Bill, the Government are seeking to make the treatment of the figure above £30,000 most important and straightforward—[Interruption.] I absolutely welcome that.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The threshold.

[James Cleverly]

Yes, but at the moment it is £30,000, and that is what it says here—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. There are too many sedentary interventions, and it makes it rather difficult for the Hansard writers, as well as everyone else.

[James Cleverly]

I am happy to take interventions, but I have never been a particularly good lip reader, so the Opposition will have to help me out on that one.

The Opposition suggested that somehow there would be some terrible Government sleight of hand to try to diddle people out of their money at a point at which they have lost their job, but it has been made absolutely clear by the Minister and in the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that there will be transparency in any changes. None are proposed, but if they were, they would follow the affirmative procedure, which would mean a Minister at the Dispatch Box, in front of the House, being quizzed and questioned by the House. They would have to be voted on by the House. So the idea that there would be some sort of back-office sleight of hand in this is inaccurate.

At a time when we have, unfortunately, heard news of proposed job losses in one of our key businesses, the Opposition’s approach is unwise. I understand why their Front Benchers have done this—they want to attack the Bill—and I am sure that if I were in their shoes, I would find whatever means I could to try to criticise the Bill. The simple truth is that there are no such proposals and nothing in the Bill to imply that there would be, but it is right that the Government maintain the opportunity to be flexible in the future.

[Peter Dowd]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the light of the shake-up in these organisations and the dreadful stress that these people are under, introducing this clause at this time is completely inappropriate and heartless? The Government can bring it back another time if they wish.

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to hear that I do not agree with him. The Bill is where the proposal is and the passage of the Bill has been timetabled in the way that it has. The idea that we delay changing the tax treatments of severance payments to a point in time when no one in British society is in the process of losing their job is farcical, as I am sure that, on reflection, he will recognise.

As has been said, the £30,000 threshold means that 85% of termination payments are completely unaffected. I am sure we have all heard anecdotes about businesses seeking to manipulate the definitions of the various elements of severance payments specifically to avoid the tax that is owed. Surely, Opposition Members would wish to make sure, as Government Members would, that tax is applied fairly, dispassionately and transparently, and that it affects all people equally. Once again, a disproportionate burden would otherwise fall on small businesses, which do not have that administrative back-office function and cannot play manipulative games to avoid tax. They are the ones that have to pay the full tax, as is right.

Some companies may have clever back-office accountants looking at ways in which to massage the definitions of the various elements of a severance payment to minimise the tax—tax that is due to the Treasury and that we want and need to fund public services. Surely, the Labour party is not suggesting we should turn a blind eye when a clever set of accountants can massage figures, making sure that the burden falls wholly and solely on small businesses, which do not have the opportunity to employ people to do that kind of smoke-and-mirrors work? I cannot imagine that is what Labour would want to do.

Amendment 4 proposes including the words “injured feelings”. Again, I am sure that this is being proposed with the best intentions, but the Labour party must realise that putting into a Bill a definition that is so vague and open to abuse is just inviting unscrupulous businesses to use it as a means of avoiding the tax that should be fairly paid upon a severance.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am guessing that the hon. Gentleman is unaware—perhaps he is not—that “injury to feelings” is a legal term. It is used within that profession, and it is recognised and understood. Therefore, it is completely reasonable to include it in an amendment.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Lady for informing me of that. I am more than happy to look in more detail at that definition, because I do not have it at my fingertips, but putting it in the Bill would present to unscrupulous employers something that looks like an invitation to use this as a back-door route to avoid the tax that should rightly be paid upon severance. It would be unwise for that to go through, because it would send exactly the opposite signal to what we are trying to achieve with the relevant clauses elsewhere in the Bill, which is to say, “If you play by the rules, fine.” The vast majority of people who receive severance pay have no need to concern themselves and neither do the vast majority of businesses. The only individuals who should be a little distressed by what is going through in the Bill are the very small number of companies that have abused the severance payment structures to avoid paying the tax that is fair. I have little sympathy for those companies. If they play by the rules, we are on their side. If they seek to bend or break the rules, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am seeking to ensure my hon. Friend understands that this does not benefit the companies; this is of benefit to individuals who take advantage. There is no tax benefit to the companies because it is income tax that is payable. [Interruption.] Well, there is national insurance—employers’ NI.

[James Cleverly]

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

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

NI.

[James Cleverly]

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

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

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Before entering this place, I was an employment rights lawyer for more than a decade, so this issue is very important to me. I represented dismissed and discriminated against employees for many years, and saw at first hand the devastating effect that the way they had been treated had on their lives. The Bill clearly seeks to narrow the scope of termination payments. Of course tax avoidance should be clamped down on, but the Government’s own consultation did not reveal evidence of widespread abuse. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said that there was tax avoidance on an industrial scale in this area, but that simply is not borne out by the evidence or indeed my experiences as an employment rights lawyer.

Finance Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

It gives me huge pleasure to follow such an assured and impassioned maiden speech by the new hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). I was born and brought up in south-east London, with a lot of family in Essex in the constituency I now represent, but my mother came originally from Sierra Leone, and the first part of the country that she set foot on when she arrived here in the early 1960s to set up a new life, and ultimately meet my father and have me, was the port of Liverpool. So the hon. Gentleman speaks of the Liver Birds alive in his stomach during his maiden speech, and my mother before she passed away recounted seeing those iconic buildings of the Royal Liver building, the Port of Liverpool building and the other one—

[Dan Carden]

The Cunard building.

[James Cleverly]

Yes; the three graces. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a piece of advice: never put lists in speeches, because everyone who does always forgets one of the elements of them.

The hon. Gentleman maintains that great Liverpudlian tradition of being a firebrand in the making, and I have no doubt that his contribution to this House will be significant even if I and my Conservative colleagues do not agree in every respect with the points he raises. I look forward, I hope for many years to come, to our crossing swords, linguistically at least, across this Chamber. I congratulate him on his maiden speech.

Turning to our Second Reading debate, Finance Bills are always important, and I will, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, start by speaking in more general, almost philosophical, terms, before coming on to address a number of specific clauses. Having read through the briefing notes for the Bill—because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) highlighted, it is in its entirety a bit of a weighty tome, and although I am pretty good at reading well into the small hours of the night, even I would be pushed to cover every single dot and comma of this gargantuan document—I am pleased to speak in support of the general tone of the things contained within it. Its main measures include the shift to reduce the tax burden on the majority of people, particularly those at the lower end of the income spectrum, and to reduce the tax burden for businesses to enable them to grow, recruit and employ, and to build the economy from a broad tax base. That goes back to one of my right hon. Friend’s points about reducing tax rates to stimulate economic activity both in the commercial sector and in people’s private lives, generating the financial fluidity that can then be harvested by Governments in order to invest in the public services that we value the most.

As Conservatives we should not be afraid of the concept of taxing and spending. There, I have said it out loud, and it was not even that painful. We have committed and are continuing to commit to increasing expenditure on the key public services on which we all rely. I spoke about my mother earlier, and she spent her entire professional life in the national health service as a nurse and then a midwife. We agree across the House that the NHS both deserves and demands increased Government investment, but the question is not just about how we spend, but about how we raise the money to invest. The rebalancing, over time, of the route taken by this Government on taxing economic activity is philosophically the right direction of travel. As we have done in Budgets and Finance Bills over the years that we have been in government, we should look at every opportunity to reduce the tax burden on individual taxpayers and businesses.

The topic of small businesses has come up several times already this afternoon, and my view has always been that if we have in our minds the economic impact of our political and financial decisions on the small business sector, we will rarely go wrong when it comes to the economy in general. If we look to relieve the financial burden on small businesses, they will without a shadow of a doubt be able to grow, expand and recruit, and big businesses will continue to do well in a more buoyant economic environment. The Bill contains several measures to relieve pressure on small businesses, but if I were to have a criticism, it is just that I would like to see that go further and faster. Particularly after we end our membership of the European Union, we should consider every opportunity to unleash the potential of the British business sector. Let us use that as the starting gun in a race for good ideas to unlock our small and medium-sized business sector, particularly digitally enabled micro-businesses.

Clauses 48 to 59 specifically address a phenomenon that has been brought to my attention in constituency advice surgeries. Smart, innovative British-based businesses are being unfairly undercut by the fulfilment houses of overseas businesses, which make it impossible for British businesses to maintain a sensible living, driving a number of them out of business. Those international players are not paying their fair share of tax. They are putting the squeeze on the sparky, hard-working, innovative, entrepreneurial, often back-bedroom businesses, many of which have been started by people who, demographically, are not as well represented in the British workforce as they should be; they are often ethnic-owned businesses. Women starting entrepreneurial digital businesses are being put under incredible pressure by big overseas players that are undercutting them unfairly. I am pleased that the Government have taken notice of that concern. This is a big step in the right direction, and I will keep a close eye on how it rolls out.

We continue our drive to ensure that non-doms who—“take advantage” is the wrong term—make use of our services and the positive environment we create also pay their fair share, and in this Bill I am pleased to see the Government continuing on that route to ensure that the people who use our public services and who live under the umbrella of protection we provide also pay their fair share.

I will now bring my comments to a conclusion. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is the best thing I have said thus far. I will be supporting the Government on this Bill, and I would encourage everyone to do so because its philosophical underpinning is exactly right. We need to continue making tax simpler, fairer and more effective.

Economy and Jobs

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Interestingly, Labour was the only political party that published a costed programme. I repeat: the only numbers in the Tory manifesto were the page numbers—nothing more. We will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the costing booklet—I thought he had already received it but clearly he has not. We increased our expenditure by £48.6 billion, and that is covered by a range of revenue sources, all of which are identified and advised on, and ensure that day-to-day expenditure is covered. The IFS told us that we would comply with Labour’s fiscal credibility rule, reducing the overall deficit over a rolling five-year programme, and reducing the debt within that period.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

It is not only the Labour party that highlighted the consequence of the Tories’ failed economic approach. Last week the Governor of the Bank of England warned of “weaker real income growth”. He spoke about “markedly weak investment” and “rapid consumer credit growth”. Worryingly, he warned that the extent to which the UK’s current account deficit has moved closer to sustainability “remains open to question”, as we continue to rely on what he describes as the “kindness of strangers” to fund us.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

It was a great speech, though. I am quite used to throwing red books about in this place. I will send the right hon. Lady a copy of the manifesto my party is united behind.

[James Cleverly]

United!

[John McDonnell]

Yes, united behind. I am proud to say it.

The failed and deeply unpopular austerity programme, the deeply divided rudderless Cabinet, the directionless Brexit negotiation strategy and a contentless Queen’s Speech surely confirms it is time for this Government to now go. It is time for change. Our amendment addresses the change that is needed. As the Labour party demonstrated during the general election campaign, there is an alternative. We can address the deep-rooted problems our economy faces. The Labour party has forged ahead with a serious credible alternative to the Government’s failed approach. Our society can afford decent public services. We are the fifth-richest economy in the world. If we have a fair taxation system, we can end the cuts to schools’ budgets. We can end the horrific sight of children sleeping on chairs in hospital corridors. We can end the bedroom tax and the punitive benefits sanctions regime. We can do that, as the IFS confirmed, while remaining on target to eliminate the budget deficit in accordance with our fiscal credibility rule.

It is not just about a fairer taxation system. We need a Government to invest what is needed to secure our future: not the derisory numbers floated by the Chancellor in the autumn statement with so little to back them up, but a serious, long-term vision of the economy that tackles the regional disparities and the changes taking place in the labour market. We need a Government committed to driving up productivity by increasing investment, as demanded by the CBI and many others, and to delivering a serious industrial strategy. It is a transformative programme that we look forward to implementing in government shortly.

This Queen’s Speech does nothing to solve these problems. It confirms a Government isolated from the real world in which our people live. Labour’s amendment today sets out the alternative our country so desperately needs. I urge all hon. Members to support the amendment.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]

James Cleverly Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I am sure that there will always be people who are opposed to what I am trying to do. That is the nature of society—we live in an open society in which people have different points of view on many issues. The fourth money laundering directive should be about capturing bad people in its scope, not capturing all people. If everyone is thought of as bad, it is very difficult to identify who is actually breaking the law. We want to go after the law breakers, not those people who, by accident, are described or identified as PEPs by banks in this country.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the rush to implement these actions ahead of the directive indicates a desire by the banks to take what seems to be decisive action against a group of people who are quite easy to target, and that the banks will be less keen to take that action against people who are harder to track down? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know the fondness of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for live music, and it is a fondness that I share, but there are limits.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

indicated assent.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will he give way? [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. Leave me to deal with this. Mr Cleverly, I have known you for years and you have always struck me as a very polite fellow. You are getting over-excited, young man. You will have an opportunity to intervene, perhaps in due course, but you don’t do it like that. Learn from a few old hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman’s interview on the Marr programme on Sunday expressed a profound concern that he had about the unfairness of the Budget, and we agreed with this. As I said, I have not agreed with a single policy he has pursued, but I do not doubt his sincerity. The right hon. Gentleman saw—

[James Cleverly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will in a minute. There is no need to shout out so loud again.

The right hon. Gentleman saw the unfairness of the PIP cuts to disabled people in the Budget. As he said, it is a Budget that benefits high earners. He also saw himself being set up by his own Cabinet colleague.

[John McDonnell]

I fully concur. The same week that this was being discussed, ESA was being cut by £30 a week.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He has been speaking now for 14 minutes. He has criticised Conservative Members for making this about politics and people, but I was just wondering when he will actually get around to talking about any of the Budget proposals.

[John McDonnell]

The role of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account. We are holding this Chancellor to account for a potential attack on disabled people that I believe would have devastated their lives.

What I find most disgraceful through all of this is that there has been no word of apology from the Chancellor or any Conservative Member. Apologise, I say. I say apologise for the pain and anguish he has caused disabled people and their families in the past two weeks. We all make mistakes. I understand that. But when you make a mistake and correct it, you should at least apologise.

Small Businesses: Tax Reporting

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Dowden]

I hope that all that will be considered in the consultation that the Government have committed to undertake.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Much of the correspondence I have received on this from small businesses and those who write about small business is based on what seems to be a misunderstanding, but concern may go a long way to either hampering or aiding implementation. Do not the Government need to give almost as much thought to the communication about implementation as to the implementation itself to give small businesses confidence that they have thought through the regulatory burden that this requirement might be perceived to bring?

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I alluded to earlier, a lot of press coverage has suggested that this requirement amounts to quarterly tax returns. Whatever reservations we may have, it is pretty clear that it does not amount to that. I would welcome the Minister’s explicit assurance about that.

Another concern raised by petitioners was that they would not have the software or skills to produce the required information. I would welcome a commitment to proper availability of information, software and, where necessary, training for small businesses. We all know the difficulties of getting in contact with HMRC by telephone, so I ask the Government to look at ways to ensure that such information is readily and easily available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. We have both been involved in local government issues and campaigned on national issues. Every moment that a self-employed person spends on the phone to the local council, HMRC or any other Government Department is a moment they are not spending getting new business, delivering new contracts and earning the money that will give them the security they need in the long term.

We know that HMRC has a lamentable record on customer service, which the Minister graciously acknowledged in answering questions in the main Chamber recently. I know that he will focus on that issue, and people such as myself and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will continue campaigning on it, because it is extremely important. In the interests of fairness, I will also carry on campaigning against my council in Brighton and Hove, which is a Labour-run council, to ensure that it offers better services for, and better contact with, its local businesses and self-employed people.

I am well aware that people who run big businesses in the city that I represent, whether American Express in Brighton, Kemptown or EDF in my constituency of Hove, have a named contact in the local authority. That contact is called the chief executive. If the chief executive of one of those big businesses wants to get the council on the phone, they call the council’s chief executive. However, the drivers of our local economy—people who run companies that employ fewer than eight people, which make up 90% of the businesses in our city—do not have a named contact in the local authority. There are no consequences if a phone is not picked up, or if a message is not returned. That symbolises how power is distributed in the wrong direction.

It would be wrong if we designed and implemented policies that put people off wanting to become self-employed. The calls that Members from all parties have made in this debate, imploring the Minister to ensure that there is a period of consultation, have been extremely well put.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing his experiences as an entrepreneur. As someone who has run a small business, I completely understand the point that he is making about fear of change. Does he therefore agree that if the Government showed that the new policy could be intuitive and easy to understand and implement, many of the potential hurdles that he has highlighted could be put to one side? If some of the tech entrepreneurs who I know are prevalent in his constituency could be involved in designing the implementation and roll-out of the measure with the Government, that would go a long way to addressing the issues that he has raised.

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful for that thoughtful intervention, and I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s points. However, when policies are thoughtful, intuitive and in the interests of business, businesses usually flock to take them up. In this case something has clearly gone wrong in one of two ways: either it is being communicated in the wrong way, but it is a great policy; or it is a poor policy that is being communicated in the right way but is not managing to hit home. The purpose of the debate is to decide which it is.

The policy needs to be tested and communicated better. We need to ensure that people who run businesses—smart people who want to do the right thing by paying their taxes and ensuring that their businesses are not disproportionately burdened—are fully involved as the policy is implemented in the long run. In my view it certainly should happen in the long run, because at the moment, people are being put off going into self-employment or setting up their own business.

Interestingly, on the train up here today, when I was speaking to my brother, who works as a postman in the Brighton, Pavilion constituency, he told me that one of his colleagues had seen on the news that this debate was coming up and had talked about self-employment. His colleague was self-employed for a number of years—more than a decade—but moved away from it because of the fear of the accounting, bureaucracy and regulation that was being heaped on to self-employed people.

The freedom that is associated with self-employment has diminished. As well as the burden of regulation, people fear not having the skills that they need, and they fear the unknown. Because they are not a trained accountant or an experienced administrator—rather, they are a skilled labourer—they fear that they might step outside regulatory measures without being aware of it. That was enough to drive my brother’s colleague away from self-employment and back into paid employment. We should be wary of that, because it would be a huge shame if entrepreneurship were to become the preserve of the middle classes. I do not believe that entrepreneurial spirit is class-based or education-based; it is evenly distributed, even though it is not evenly expressed in our economy.

Public policy on the self-employed needs to be got right, particularly for people who run small businesses or microbusinesses. At the moment, I do not believe that Government policy across the board is on their side. Let us take one example—the much vaunted, much hyped productivity plan, which I know the Minister is keen to refer to often in the Chamber and in the media. It is interesting that in the Government’s flagship productivity plan there is not one single mention of the self-employed, who make up 15% of the workforce and number 4.5 million people. The fastest-growing employment trend in our country does not warrant a single mention in the productivity plan.

In my constituency there is a fantastic business called Crunch, which has been set up specifically to supply accountancy services to people who are self-employed or running microbusinesses. I know that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, went to visit a couple of weeks ago, which was absolutely fantastic. It now provides services not only right across our city but right across the south of England, and it is great that people are starting to notice just how fantastic the business is and how important its services are. It provides light-touch, fast, responsive support to people setting up businesses. The great thing about being able to visit it is that because it has thousands of customers, it can harness insight into real-time trends in self-employment and see the impact of public policy on the small business and self-employed sector. I know that quite often, HMRC and Government Departments struggle to get real-time data on the impact of Government policy.

One prediction that Crunch makes about the negative impacts of policy is that the leap from 0% to 7.5% in basic rate dividend tax will hit lower-earning company directors the hardest. Those are probably self-employed people who are moving their company to limited status, have a very small number of employees and pay themselves through dividends. Everyone wants to make sure that the right people are paying tax, but the proposal could have the most negative impact on people on lower incomes who run microbusinesses. For example, a limited company director paying themselves primarily through dividends would pay £1,528 more tax a year on pre-tax profits of £48,000, whereas a director with £78,000 of pre-tax profits would pay only £1,343 more.

We can also see from the statistics that the change in income tax for a microbusiness from 2015-16 to 2016-17 will have a negative impact of 21% on somebody earning about £40,000. The equivalent impact on somebody earning £58,000 will be minus 1%. There is something regressive, not progressive, about the changes to dividend tax, and we need to shift the tax burden so that it is progressive, not regressive. If the Minister does so, I know that he will be met with support from both sides of the House. I would very much welcome his comments on that point.

European Union Referendum Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman is not of course the only person who is delighted to see so many new SNP Members bringing their wisdom to this Chamber. We refer to the independence referendum because we have the facts and the evidence to show that if we include 16 and 17-year-olds in the process, they get involved. To make the argument that Westminster elections did not inspire people to get involved in elections in the past is more of a reflection on Westminster politicians than on the public at large. We have the evidence that 16-year-olds got involved. It was good that they campaigned—good for those who got involved on the no side as well as for those who did so on the yes side. It was a positive thing all round, and I pay tribute to those people.

Just as with the rest of the population, if we give young people a genuine opportunity to get involved in a meaningful democratic process, they will do so, and the European Union referendum provides us with such an opportunity. To give the Minister and the Prime Minister more of an incentive, I suspect that 16-year-olds will be better informed and give their Government a fairer hearing on the deal they are negotiating with Brussels than will their own Back Benchers.

This House has been left behind on votes for 16-year-olds. It is happening in Scotland, the Isle of Man and elsewhere. Let us not be left behind again. Let us back votes for 16-year-olds.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I rise to support the Government on Lords amendment 1. A number of arguments have been deployed for extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in the European referendum. I have listened to them in this and other debates, and they can be distilled into two broad camps. The first argument—we have just heard an example of it from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins)—is that what has been done in Scotland should be done across the rest of the UK. The other argument is that this is about their future and, because this is a one-off referendum, they should be allowed to have a say in their future. I will address each point in turn.

I lived for a year on Deeside—in the Dee valley between Ballater and Aboyne—which is a truly beautiful and wonderful part of the world. From living there, I discovered that lots of things in Scotland are done differently from how we do them in England and Wales, but vive la difference: we do not necessarily want to create complete homogeneity across the whole of the UK. I suspect that one reason why SNP Members are so passionate about independence is that they want to do things differently from how they are done in England and Wales, so I find it slightly strange that, in their collective desire to be independent and different, they are suggesting we should all be the same.

[Geraint Davies]

The SNP spokesman’s point was that if we give 16-year-olds the right to vote, they become more valued and engaged, and there is increased representation. They become part of the fabric of democratic society and adopt responsibilities, which enriches our whole community. We should go ahead with it.

[James Cleverly]

Part of my speech will address the very point that the hon. Gentleman makes. If he will indulge me, I will not concertina in that part of my speech in response to his intervention. However, I will come back to it, and if he is not satisfied by the rest of my speech, I invite him to intervene again later.

I want to return to what happens in Scotland. There is one long-standing difference between what 16-year-olds can do in Scotland and what they can do in the rest of the United Kingdom. Gretna Green is famous because it is the first place where runaway lovers can take advantage of the different attitude towards the age of marriage. To say that because something happens in Scotland it must therefore happen in the rest of the United Kingdom is a hollow argument.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cleverly]

I will give way in a moment.

I advise SNP Members to be a little careful about what they wish for. If their position is that any devolved power they exercise must then, by extension, be absorbed by the rest of the UK, that will create a lot of friction and disharmony as people in rest of the United Kingdom—

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

[James Cleverly]

At least let me get to the end of my point.

Those people will feel aggrieved at the automatic assumption that devolved decisions made in Scotland are therefore going to wash across to the rest of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

[James Cleverly]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Carol Monaghan]

The hon. Gentleman is somewhat missing the point. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) talked about the engagement of 16 and 17-year-olds. We have found in Scotland—the evidence backs this up—that by giving the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, they remain engaged in the political process beyond the age of 16 or 17. Although the rest of the UK may have had low numbers voting in Westminster elections, we have had much higher numbers—above 70%—in Scotland.

[James Cleverly]

I assume that the hon. Lady misunderstood the type of engagement I was talking about when I referred to Gretna Green. I will come on to her point later.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made a very important point about the natural implication of extending the voting rights in the European referendum to other elections. In a previous life, I was the youth ambassador for the Mayor of London. I spent a huge amount of time dealing with young people across London, so I know that there are many very well-informed, engaged, articulate, thoughtful people aged 16 and 17. There are also some very well-informed, articulate, engaged 15-year-olds. Frankly, there are some 40-year-olds I would not trust to tie their own shoelaces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to know that I certainly do not support votes at 16. Over some years as the Chair of the Children, Schools and Families Committee, what worried me was the increasing pressure on childhood in our country. It worries me that people will be adults at 16. The implications of that have never been seriously looked at by my party. There has never been any investigation of the impact of bringing down the voting age to 16 on children and childhood. The Opposition, including the SNP, have never done a proper evaluation of the impact on children and on the protection of children, which should be our top priority.

[James Cleverly]

That leads me neatly on to my closing remarks.

There is a natural extension of this proposal. People say that this is a one-off and that there will be no extension, but we have just heard a number of speeches and interventions from SNP Members saying that they gave votes to 16-year-olds in the Scottish referendum and that they then gave votes to 16-year-olds at Holyrood elections. They suggest that this is the most natural evolution of the democratic process. They are making exactly the point that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) warns against. This proposal will unlock the floodgates for the change of the mandate to 16 at many other elections.

By mandating that 16 and 17-year-olds are to remain in education, society has made an explicit comment that we do not feel that they are fully formed. If we did, we would not suggest that they had to stay in education, we would not suggest that they could not book their own sunbed and we would not suggest that they should not even be allowed to buy their own sparklers on Guy Fawkes night.

It is a ridiculous notion that in a one-hour debate, tagged on to the European Union Referendum Bill, we should make a decision as fundamental as changing the electoral mandate. I strongly urge all Members of the House across the parties to support the Government’s position and reject the Lords amendment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Tax Credits

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I will make a little progress, but then I will happily give way again.

The House of Commons document also states:

“There is no transitional protection for existing families on tax credits.”

Let us just dwell on that statement. The harsh winds of a winter chill are brought to you by Her Majesty’s Government—or, as we might put it, Ebenezer Cameron. I do not believe that any of us came into this place to put our hands on our hearts and say that we want to do this to hard-working families. We have it in our power to stop it today. Just imagine the letters dropping through constituents’ letter boxes, telling them about the massive cuts that are about to afflict them, and for what purpose! We must pause, reflect, and change course. Today is the opportunity that the House needs to recognise that we have got this one wrong. We need to be brave, be bold, and collectively do the right thing.

Let us stop and think about this for a minute. Low-income families, on average, will lose £1,300 a year. Let us now look more specifically at a single-earner couple with two children, working a 35-hour week on the minimum wage. That couple will see their tax credit award fall by £1,853 in 2016-17. The impact of the so-called national living wage will only modestly offset the impact of a fall in tax credit income, and the net family income will fall by £1,525.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the parties represented on his side of the House have made a series of apocalyptic predictions about the British economy since the 2010 general election, and that, one after another, those apocalyptic predictions have been proved wrong? Why should we believe your predictions now?

[Ian Blackford]

We are not making any apocalyptic predictions about the economy. What we are talking about is the impact on hard-working families. We want to see investment in our economy. We want to see investment in innovation and skills, improving productivity and improving the living standards of all, in Scotland and elsewhere. We want to work with you so that we can improve those things.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

In the Labour party, we have a democratic process involving the shadow Cabinet and the parliamentary Labour party. In fact, it is so democratic that it is reported in the press virtually daily.

This charter will be used time and again as an excuse for the Government’s refusal to intervene and invest, but the more we know about its potential use, the more my view is strengthened—it has to be vigorously opposed. It will be used to justify cutting services and support to families across the UK, including the cuts to tax credits, which are the working families’ penalty. I cannot support the cuts to tax credits for working families. These are people who have done everything asked of them: they have gone to work and looked after their children, yet because of the policy direction in this charter they are going to be hit with a £1,300 cut. Neither can I support the continuing attack on disabled people, which is inherent in this fiscal mandate.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will in a minute.

Disabled people are already harassed—some to death—by the brutal work capability assessment and often by benefit sanctions, yet they are to lose over £30 a week. Disabled people under this Government and under the coalition have been hit 18 times harder than other citizens by the impact of cuts. I do not want the Labour party to be associated in any way with these policies, and to dissociate ourselves clearly we need to vote against them tonight.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been listening. It was professional advice. It was watching the economic headwinds grow. But, in addition to that, it was meeting families who had lost their futures in Redcar that made me decide that we need a Government who would invest and would not leave them adrift.

[James Cleverly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will discover the answer. He is renowned for his patience.

[James Cleverly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

And when that expenditure was being determined in the House, the Opposition supported it, and never objected. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may well have rejected it, but I remember his Budgets. His Budgets balanced, but when they balanced, there were 40,000 homeless families in London. People were dying on waiting lists before they got their operations. Those were the consequences of his economic policies.

Focusing on the deficit continues to mask the underlying weaknesses and failures of our unreformed economic system. We are witnessing a recovery based on rising house prices, growing consumer credit, a ballooning current account deficit and still inadequate reform of the finance sector. I worry that some of the warning signs are reappearing. But the Conservatives have adhered to their dictum: never let a crisis go to waste. They have skilfully used their narrative of the deficit to enable them to cut public services, slash benefits, and give tax cuts to the rich and corporations. Successive charters and fiscal mandates brought before this House have been cynically used as a weapon in that cause.

The purpose of the original Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, brought in by Labour, was to bolster the then Government’s economic credibility. I recall what the current Chancellor said. He described it as little more than a political stunt. But he soon learned what a useful tool charters and mandates can be, and immediately upon the coalition’s election, he introduced his own. The fact that he missed most of his targets was irrelevant to him; what was more valuable was that charters could be picked up whenever needed and prayed in aid to excuse any attack on the welfare state and any cut in benefits, and provide a means to redistribute wealth upwards.

The charter before us today also has little basis in economics. Let me quote Dr Ha-Joon Chang, Professor Thomas Piketty, Professor David Blanchflower, Mariana Mazzucato and Simon Wren-Lewis. Those eminent economists in our society said that it has

“no basis in economics. Osborne’s proposals are not fit for the complexity of a modern 21st-century economy and, as such, they risk a liquidity crisis that could also trigger banking problems, a fall in GDP, a crash, or all three.”

They go on to say that if the Government

“chooses to try to inflexibly run surpluses…Households, consumers and businesses may have to borrow more overall, and the risk of a personal debt crisis to rival 2008 could be very real indeed.”

[James Cleverly]

The wording of this charter has not changed in the past two weeks, and I am therefore curious: what happened two weeks ago? Did the hon. Gentleman read the charter and not understand it, or had he not read the charter when he advised his colleagues to vote on it?

[John McDonnell]

May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that it is always best before making an intervention to have listened to the debate so far and it is always best to make a calculation as to whether he is going to add to the sum of human knowledge by the intervention? [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] All right, I was a bit harsh. Sorry about that. Mr Speaker, I am not usually so undiplomatic, am I? May I press on? The Chancellor may not appreciate the economic points that have been made, but—

Tax Credits

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

What we have just heard is a Government in denial about the impact these changes will have on what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has described as “wrecking family finances”. We are here today only because of the efforts of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who wrote to the Prime Minister in July to insist on a full debate on these cuts to tax credits, which were not included in the Tory manifesto. The original intention had been to implement these changes with the scantiest possible parliamentary scrutiny—through a statutory instrument not debated by the whole House, but considered by a short Committee session of no more than 15 MPs and without scrutiny in the House of Lords.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech. Does she not recognise that rebalancing the financial relationship between the state, employers and employees was in the Conservative party manifesto, which was voted on and led to the return of a Conservative Government?