European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

Very simply, any suggestion that the European Commission or the EU should be involved in this process is the subject of another amendment I have tabled, and nor should they be allowed to make any provision by way of financing. We can debate that later.

On whether contradiction might be created in respect of the position of Government Ministers in this country, my flow has been slightly diverted by my hon. Friend’s perfectly understandable intervention, but the fact is that Ministers and the civil service are in a position under the purdah rules such that they would not be able to use the machinery of government. In relation to the EU, which I know a little bit about, the machinery of government is extensive, but there are methods that could be applied, with a sensible degree of amendment, to ensure that the restrictions on the matters to which I have referred are complied with, because this is what we are talking about; it is not some generalised assumption that Ministers are going to wander on to completely different paths.

Section 125 lists the material I have already referred to—

“general information about a referendum…any of the issues raised by any question…any arguments for or against any particular answer to any such question”

and questions

“designed to designed to encourage voting”,—

and it states that none of that material

“shall be published during the relevant period by or on behalf of—

(a) any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority”.

It could not be clearer; it could not be more sensible, more sound or more comprehensive.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend like to confirm that it is a principle of fairness in all British elections and referendums that individuals—Ministers as well—participate on whichever side they wish under a single campaign, for yes or for no, which has proper controls over expenditure and publications? Does he also acknowledge that there cannot be a third category of intervention by the Government, because that would break the normal rules of campaign funding and control?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. I have been quite relaxed about Members making interventions but I have noticed that they are getting longer, to the point of being beside the point. Before I call the next speaker, I must point out that I shall now be taking a slightly less relaxed view on interventions.

[John Redwood]

I hope that, when the Government bring the Bill back on Report, they will give further consideration to the question of campaign spending limits. We are all freshly back from an energetic general election campaign, and one of the finest things about the United Kingdom’s traditions that ensure fair and free elections is the fact that we have pretty strict expenditure limits in each constituency. Those of us who were the incumbents fighting to retain our seats were rightly subject to rules stating that we could not use our incumbency in any way, as that would have provided us with an obvious advantage. We could not use our ability to raise more money, for example, because there were strict limits in place.

Those strict limits applied for a five-month period. We had the long campaign period, which was subject to expenditure control, followed by the short campaign period. It is the short campaign period for the referendum that we are talking about today. I believe that it was right to impose the campaign limits early, because political parties are increasingly campaigning well in advance of the general election proper, and it looks as though the referendum campaign will kick in well before the referendum proper. Indeed, there are clearly already stirrings, even before this Bill has passed through the House of Commons.

It is good that we all have to face the challenge from a number of candidates, any one of whom has a reasonable chance of raising the maximum that we are allowed to spend in a given constituency. It is quite a large sum for an individual to raise, but it is quite a modest sum for someone who has a reasonable amount of support or who asks for small or medium-sized donations from a range of people. It is not that difficult for a relatively popular party or candidate to raise the money needed in order to spend right up to the constituency limit, to give them the maximum chance in the challenge.

I understand that the sums will be rather bigger in a national referendum campaign, and that if one side is a lot more popular than the other, that would give it an advantage not only in the vote but in the amount of fundraising it could do. But I do think that, under the current Bill, the very large sums that would be available, because of the way the parties and some of the supporting organisations are thinking, are thoroughly disproportionate. That would give the impression of unfairness, and the British people have a great sense of fairness. Many people on the yes side have a sense of fairness and would prefer it if the referendum campaign were conducted with more equal sums of money, so that the weight and quality of the argument matter more than access to funds and special ways of messaging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of what happened in the Scottish referendum. The only difference was the way that it was funded. In the United Kingdom, funds are collected centrally and go to London. If the European Union had the same model, they would be collected centrally and go to Brussels and then given out again. The point is that it is taxpayers’ money. In Scotland, we saw our taxpayers’ money come back to the UK Government and used against one side of the referendum campaign.

[John Redwood]

I quite understand, but I am suggesting something different. I am suggesting that to have a completely fair and independent referendum, there should be much stricter controls over the expenditure of Government money.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his revelatory tone and words. He said that he wants a stricter and fairer system, so his commentary on the Scottish referendum is instructive and very welcome.

[John Redwood]

The result in Scotland was pretty conclusive, so the expenditure of Government money was not the crucial thing that made the difference to the result. The result speaks for itself. But we can always learn from past experiences. For my choice, I do not favour the expenditure of public money on interfering in elections and referendums. I am known to be careful with public money anyway, and I would not want the money to be spent on this area. It is for individuals to decide what they wish to do by way of political intervention, and they can make their own decisions. If we let them have more of their own money to spend, they may wish to spend it on interventions in elections. That is how I would rather it was done. In this case, it would be particularly counterproductive for the European Union to spend some of our money, which we send to them, on intervening on one side. It would cause enormous resentments. Indeed, the no campaign might even welcome it as it would be a cause in itself which it would make use of if this became a clear use or abuse of public money.

[Kate Hoey]

I raised the issue of the EU on Second Reading. I had a helpful letter back from the Minister for Europe this week. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on his final paragraph? He says:

“I would trust the proper diplomatic relationships with Governments and institutions, and encourage them to stick by their duty to respect the right of the British people to take their own decision responsibly.”

I do not feel that I can trust the EU on this very important issue. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that?

[John Redwood]

I am afraid that I do share some of the hon. Lady’s worries. I would like to see that clearly stated in writing and as an act of policy from the EU itself. That would probably be much appreciated in many sections of the United Kingdom, so that we can be sure that there would not be clumsy, unwarranted or unwelcome interference. It would be a double irony if the EU were using our money to do it. That is what makes it particularly difficult. UK taxpayers of both views would be paying the money to the EU, but only one side of the argument would be funded by that money.

[Mr Chope]

Surely the Government could do something on this front. They could ask the European Commission and the European Union not to intervene and not to fund the referendum campaign. They could then get a written undertaking from the Commission not to use European Union funds. That is outside the scope of the Bill, but the Minister could give such an undertaking.

[John Redwood]

Indeed. I am speaking to amendment 10 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who seeks to clarify this point and prevent the use or abuse of EU money. I hope that the Minister will respond and that he will have his own proposals on Report. The Electoral Commission has given exceedingly good advice across the board on this referendum. It seemed to suggest that it would not be right for the EU to give money for the campaign, and it would be nice to have a reassurance that the Government share that view and accept the advice of that august body, which is there to guide us.

There is an additional issue with EU money, to which some colleagues have referred. What do we do about the EU money that is routed to bodies or organisations within the UK that choose to make a donation to a referendum campaign? That is another difficulty. As I understand it, such a donation would be perfectly legal because the organisation giving the money would be able to say that it had other sources of money and it was not a direct gift of EU money to the referendum campaign. Such a body may be swayed by the fact that it had had generous access to EU moneys in the past. While one would hope that none of them were donating for that reason, people would suspect that a body in receipt of substantial EU moneys in the normal course of business that saw fit to give money to the campaign to stay in would hope that the EU would be better disposed to it when it put in its next application for money.

[Sir William Cash]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was here when we were debating part of this, but the Electoral Commission’s position is that a central principle of the regulatory regime that it supervises is that foreign sources of funding should not have undue influence on our democratic process. It has come to the conclusion that the European Commission does not fall within the list of bodies that can register as a campaigner. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to get to the bottom of that? It is highly arguable that the European constitutional arrangements are effectively embedded in our own constitutional arrangements by virtue of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. We need to get this right.

[John Redwood]

I was present to hear my hon. Friend speak to his amendment, and I am aware of the legal minefield that the provision could represent. That is why I worded my remarks cautiously—I said that I thought it was the view of the Electoral Commission that it would not be appropriate for the EU to spend money on the campaign. As he reminds us, it has made a clear statement about being a principal donor to the campaign, but there are other ways in which it could help, and it might argue that it was a domestic institution for these purposes. It might say that the EU’s writ runs within the UK. There is an office of the EU in London; it might try and route it through the London office. We need to say that that would be unwise. The Minister may think that it is illegal or that it should be impeded in some way. We need clear guidance from the Minister.

I return to the issue of indirect funding of the campaign by grant-in-aid to organisations that are helped or partially funded by the EU. Of course, it is a matter for the referendum campaign to argue over the rights and wrongs of EU funding. I am sure the no campaign will want to say that the money we send to Brussels and which it gives back to our organisations could be given to them directly by the United Kingdom Government if Brussels were not in the way. It could be pointed out that the £11 billion we send to Brussels in tax revenue is spent outside the UK, so, were we to leave, that money would be available for either tax cuts or extra spending in the United Kingdom.

That would be a matter of debate in the referendum, but an issue for the Bill relates to the legality, morality and political wisdom and judgment regarding the point at which an organisation becomes so dependent on EU funding that it has a very strong interest in it. Restrictions or limitations—or at least a declaration of interest—might need to be made if such a body decides to become involved in the referendum campaign. It would be wise to let people know of such a clear financial interest if the body played an important part in the yes campaign.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend think it would be possible to have a register of interests? Then, when companies go on the BBC and say, “We don’t want the United Kingdom to leave the EU,” we would know where their money comes from, what their actual policy is and the extent to which they are dominated by the EU system.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

A register of interests would be one way of handling it. It would be quite complicated for large companies, but rather easier for grant-receiving organisations. The issue for companies is rather different. I am all in favour of business people taking an active part in our politics, but they may need to intervene as individuals, because if they are an executive in a very large company that has a broad shareholder base, they may not be speaking for their shareholders on a very political issue. People would ask them, “Is this your private view or are you speaking for the company and has it been tested in a company general meeting?” That is probably a debate for another day. I am all in favour of major business involvement, but unless someone owns the company they have to be careful in associating the company with their own particular views.

The conclusion I wish to put to the Government is that this Bill is extremely welcome, but it is work in progress. These are very complicated areas, because the EU is a unique and powerful institution. In order to have a fair assessment by the British people of its worth or demerits, we need to be very careful and to not in any way trammel our usual belief in independence and fairness when we test the mood of the people. I do not think the Bill quite yet meets that requirement, but I hope that, on Report, Ministers will have better and more detailed answers about how we handle the scale of campaign donations and the period prior to the referendum campaign proper with respect to controls over messages and financing, and that they will be able to address the very vexed subject of how much power, influence, money and messaging the EU itself can inject into what should be a United Kingdom debate.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and I want to draw on some of the points he made about amendments 10 and 53.

It is a very poor politician who spends a lot of time talking about his previous speeches, but I would like to refer the House to what I said in this Chamber on 13 January 2014, when we had a lively debate on the Europe for Citizens budget, which we had a right to veto at the time and which involved the funding of a whole host of European pet projects. One such project is the European Movement and, from the very position on which I now stand, the late and much lamented Charles Kennedy made an impassioned plea for us not to cut the funding for the organisation of which he was the president. That relates to the point I want to make: we should be very wary of how organisations that receive European funding will act during the referendum campaign and ask whether they should be regulated in some way.

The preamble of the draft regulations for the Europe for Citizens programme states:

“While there is objectively an added value in being a Union citizen with established rights, the Union does not always highlight in an effective way the link between the solution to a broad range of economic and social problems and the Union’s policies.”

Therefore it wants the organisations that it funds to be very positive in the arguments that they make when they engage with civil society.

The Europe for Citizens budget line, which the European Commission funds, gives the European Movement a very large sum of money. I do not wish to pick on the European Movement all the time, but it is a good example of an organisation that receives some money to campaign to present a positive view of Europe, which I know is welcomed by many in this House, and whose funding comes from the European Commission which, I believe, wants to ensure a certain result in the forthcoming referendum.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As I have said, the estimated cost over the previous seven years was £6.6 billion, and in future it will be about £2 billion a year. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making: he want us to clear up yet another mess that was created by the last Government, although I acknowledge that he was as disappointed by his Government as we were. As for what the UK Government can do about the financial position, let me explain what we did in the 2013 negotiations. Whereas the last Government had agreed to an 8% increase in the spending ceiling, we proceeded with an agenda that was in the UK’s interests. This time, the two sensible things that we could do to protect the British taxpayer were to get the overall budget down and to protect our rebate, and that is precisely what we achieved.

The agreement that the Prime Minister secured back in 2013 was good for Europe and good for the United Kingdom. At the time, some argued that it was not possible, and that the interests of the UK were in some way incompatible with the wider aims of the European Union, but the Government showed them that they were wrong.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Bill not endorse a system that takes £12 billion of our taxpayers’ money and spends it elsewhere on the continent, while we receive not a penny of benefit? If the British people voted “out”, they could presumably be given a £12 billion tax cut to celebrate our leaving the European Union.

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend has taken me in the direction of the wider issue of our EU membership. As became clear this week, the people of the United Kingdom will have an opportunity to vote on that, but this is the system that applies while we are members of the European Union. My right hon. Friend may wish to present his argument during a future debate, but what cannot be in doubt is that the Prime Minister’s achievement during the 2013 negotiations constituted a huge improvement on the record of the last Government. It protected the rebate, and it ensured, for the first time, that we were able to reduce the overall expenditure of the EU over the multi-annual financial framework period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The deal Scotland gets includes support from the structural funds which have been protected as a consequence of decisions made by the UK Government in the last Parliament.

Turning to the deal secured on the revenue side, as hon. Members may be aware, the system by which EU member states finance the annual EU budget is set out in EU legislation known as the own resources decision—ORD for short. At the 2013 February Council, there was strong pressure from some member states, the Commission and the European Parliament to reform the way member states finance the EU budget. These included proposals to introduce a financial transaction tax and do away with the UK rebate, or at least change the way it works.

The Prime Minister stood his ground and made it clear that the UK would not agree to such proposals, nor agree to anything that changed the way our rebate worked. It was a specific objective for the UK that this new financing system would require no new own resources or EU-wide taxes to finance EU expenditure, and no change to the UK rebate, and that is precisely what we achieved.

The political agreement at the 2013 February European Council was accurately reflected in the financing arrangements which all EU member states agreed unanimously at a meeting of the Council of Ministers in May 2014. Under the agreement, which this Bill will implement, the Prime Minister protected what is left of the UK rebate, and this is maintained without any change throughout the life of this agreement.

The agreement also ensures there will be no new types of member state contributions and no new taxes to finance EU spending over this period. The new ORD does not make any changes to the way that the EU budget is financed. There are some changes in the detail of the ORD compared with the previous one, however. For example, it reintroduces reductions in the GNI-based contributions of the Netherlands and Sweden, and introduces small reductions in these contributions for Denmark and Austria. The UK will contribute to these small corrections, which will mean an additional £16 million in contributions from the UK per year compared to the last ORD; that is around 0.1% of our total gross contribution in 2014. Moreover, this will be largely offset by changes in other corrections.

[John Redwood]

I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister on defending Britain’s interests against a far worse settlement, but is it not also the case that under the pre-existing agreements if Britain grows more quickly than the euroland, which it is doing and appears that it will carry on doing, we will get caned by having to pay more tax?

[Mr Gauke]

Part of the calculation of member states’ contributions is based on the size of their economy. That means that bigger economies pay more and smaller ones pay less. As an economy becomes relatively bigger, it makes a bigger contribution. That is the factual situation; that is how it works.

I referred earlier to the corrections and the small reductions in the contributions from Denmark and Austria. The UK has always supported the principle of budgetary corrections set out at the 1984 Fontainebleau European Council, which gave us our rebate. In the absence of any meaningful reform on the expenditure side of the budget, we believe that those member states that make disproportionately large net contributions to the budget in relation to their prosperity, such as the UK, should receive corrections.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

Is there any extra tax demand that the EU makes on us that the Labour party disagrees with?

[Barbara Keeley]

We are actually supporting the Bill—

[John Redwood]

So the answer is no.

[Barbara Keeley]

Yes, indeed. I am making the point that we need to make this process clearer, and I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister would agree with that. It is a difficult technical process, but the people outside this place need to be able to understand it. In my view, they do not.

[John Redwood]

What do people not understand? The EU is taking £12 billion of our money, and this Bill is going to give it more.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think people do understand that. The point is that the benefits are not understood. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has his view, and other people have a different one. The process could be made clearer, and it is my contention that we will have to do that. As we put this important decision in front of people in the coming months, they will have to be able to understand this better than they do at the moment.

Interestingly, the European Commission recently sent hon. Members a document promising to tell us “How the European Union works”. We have a host of new Members with us today, and I do not know whether any of them have seen that document in among the mountain of material that has landed on them recently. It is a 40-page document, but it contains only two short paragraphs—indeed, 10 lines—about the EU budget. It does not give figures for that budget, nor does it describe how the money is spent. Yet in the months ahead, as I said, that will be a key aspect of the debate for the people of this country.

The debate in the House in February 2013 and other debates since have focused on the fact that substantial reform of priorities is still needed in the EU budget. We have had questions about the balance of agriculture spending, but the Labour party believes that growth and jobs should continue to be prioritised by cutting back even further on agriculture spending and other similar priorities. Spending on the common agricultural policy fell as a proportion of the budget from 55% in 1997 to 46% in 2010. We welcome the continued decline in agriculture spending as a share of the European budget; it will drop from 41% of EU commitments in 2014 to 35% in 2020. The difficult reflection for people outside Parliament, however, is that with agriculture making up only 1.6% of the total output of the European Union, why does it still account for 30% to 40% of the budget? There is still much more to do.

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, although it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to judge how to proceed. In the UK, our reductions in corporation tax have been an important part of our long-term economic plan, but they have not been the only part, and I know that the Northern Ireland Executive will want to do everything possible, in addition to this power, to put in place the conditions for economic growth. One should not pretend that this in isolation solves every problem. None the less it will be a very useful additional power for the Northern Ireland Executive, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) said, there will be considerable interest elsewhere in how the policy develops and the benefits that accrue as a consequence.

To reduce the administrative burdens on SMEs, a special regime will be put in place. A simple in/out test will mean that the majority of companies will be spared the burden and cost of proportioning profits. More than 97% of SMEs operating in Northern Ireland meet the 75% employment test threshold and will benefit from the Northern Ireland regime.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank KPMG Belfast, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and PricewaterhouseCoopers for their written submissions to the Public Bill Committee and the other businesses that sent representations directly to HMRC, and I welcome the continued support shown by the Northern Ireland business community and businesses elsewhere in the UK for this measure. In January, 80% of firms polled at an Ernst & Young Ulster Hall seminar on the Bill believed that a cut in corporation tax would have a positive impact on their businesses.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made clear on Second Reading, the Bill’s progress through Parliament is dependent on the Executive parties delivering on their commitments in the Stormont House agreement, so I am pleased that the Executive has so far met their obligations. They agreed their budget for 2015-16, passing their Budget Bill last week, while the Welfare Reform Bill passed its Further Consideration stage in the Assembly at the end of February. The Government will continue to assess progress as the Bill moves forward, and in future years as decisions on implementing the powers are to be taken.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As we have recently seen, a cut in the higher rate of income tax leads to increased revenues—from the dynamic effects—so has the Treasury done any modelling on the optimum rate of corporation tax, if the aim is to maximise revenue?

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Treasury’s study into the effects of our reductions in UK corporation tax, and it was clear that they would result in increased investment and growth in the UK. The Treasury’s assessment was that about half of the forgone revenue consequent on the reduction in corporation tax would be recovered over time. As the OECD has set out on numerous occasions, there is a strong case for saying that corporation tax is one of the more growth-damaging of taxes—it is economically very inefficient, being a tax on investment—and therefore making progress on that front is to be welcomed. Come April, the UK will have the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G20, and we on the Government Benches would want to maintain that position, despite the calls from others to abandon such an approach.

The Stormont House agreement also outlined the approach to adjusting the Executive’s block grant, alongside devolution of the power to set the rate of corporation tax. I recognise the interest of right hon. and hon. Members in the issue and have therefore set out further details in a letter to the Public Bill Committee. I would like to reassure Members that the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive continue to work closely to finalise the arrangements.

A minor and technical amendment was agreed in Committee to ensure that clause 5 was drafted in line with normal practice for commencement powers and to remove the scope for misinterpretation. It gives the Government the power to turn on the legislation by regulations made by statutory instrument.

The Bill is vital in allowing the Northern Ireland Executive greater power to rebalance the economy towards a stronger private sector, boosting employment, growth and the standard of living in Northern Ireland, with benefits for the wider UK. The unique challenges faced by Northern Ireland have been recognised by Members on both sides of the House, and I welcome the efficient and effective debate we have had so far. I am grateful for the Opposition’s commitment to co-operate with the Government to ensure that the Bill can be scrutinised appropriately and dealt with speedily in this Parliament, and I hope that hon. Members will see fit to read it the Third time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I give way first to the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on to the rest of my remarks.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Forgive me, but because of time considerations, I will not.

Let me raise a couple of issues that received lengthy debate in Committee and will be important aspects of the work needed to take the Bill forward. I speak particularly of the block grant. I am grateful for the letter that the Minister sent to the Public Bill Committee, further setting out the Government’s approach to calculating the element of the block grant that the Northern Ireland Executive will have to pay back to the UK Government. We are still a long way from a nail-down formula, as it were, for how the block grant reduction will be calculated, particularly in respect of measuring and calculating behavioural effects that will need to be taken into account.

I note the indication in one of the appendices to the letter that the devolution of corporation tax to the Northern Ireland Executive in 2019-20 is expected to cost about £325 million if Northern Ireland opts for a 12.5% rate rather than the United Kingdom’s 20% rate, but much more work will need to be done on that, and an agreement will need to be struck with the Northern Ireland Executive.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman is persistent. I will give way to him very briefly.

[Mr Redwood]

When will the Labour party give justice to England? Surely, given the devolution of tax matters to Northern Ireland and Scotland—which we welcome—there needs to be a voice for England, and an ability for England to make her decisions on those matters as well.

[Shabana Mahmood]

With respect, responding to the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention would lead me into a much lengthier discussion on a matter that is not directly relevant to the Bill. However, he has put his point on the record once again, and I am sure that he is pleased about that.

As I was saying, it is clear that the methodology for calculating behavioural changes in particular will require detailed work between the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.

The Minister said in Committee that there would be pressure on the Executive to take account of any profit shifting that might occur. Indeed, it is in their interest to limit profit shifting in order not to increase the amount that they must pay back to the Treasury. The Minister said that a memorandum of understanding would be drawn up between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of the costs of policing the limitation of profit shifting, and the processes, governance and accountability that would be needed for assessment of the activity. That is an important part of the framework, but we have not been given many details so far.

We all hope that the devolution will go ahead in 2017, but a potential stumbling block is the condition that Northern Ireland’s finances must be put on a stable footing before that can happen. We have still not been told exactly what that will mean, and what threshold the Executive will have to cross in order to prove that they have met the condition. I hoped that the Minister might give some idea of the timetable agreed between the UK Government and the Executive in relation to when some of the key decisions will have to be made. I trust that they will be made well before 2017, although the Minister said in Committee that that was the deadline, because there is a great deal to be done between now and then. I think that we shall all have to return to the issue of conditionality after the general election.

We are in favour of all measures that will assist the people of Northern Ireland and their economy. It is in the interests of the whole United Kingdom for Northern Ireland’s economy to be rebalanced and strengthened. We therefore support the Bill, and will continue to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr McCrea]

Let me begin by thanking the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the Bill, and thanking Opposition Members for supporting it.

I must also apologise for the absence of some of my colleagues. As a number of Members will know, the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has died, and was buried this afternoon. That is why my hon. Friends the Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) are not present either, although they have a tremendous interest in this subject. On behalf of all Members, I wish to express our sincere sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford. We pray that the Lord will strengthen and comfort his family, especially his mother, at this time of their grief and sorrow.

I know that some Members have felt rather envious as they have sat back and watched the progress of the Bill to its present stage. Nevertheless, both the Government and the official Opposition have acknowledged that the circumstances of Northern Ireland are unique because of its land border with the Irish Republic, which has one of the world’s lowest corporation tax regimes. Government policy has directed us to rebalance the economy—to move away from our high dependence on public sector employment and boost the local private sector—but we cannot do that with no more than an instruction from the House; we need the tools that will allow us to do the job. We have an earnest desire to move Northern Ireland forward, and to transfer our people from the unemployment list to meaningful and gainful employment.

[Mr Redwood]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that many of us have pressed for a measure of this kind for a long time, and welcome it greatly. I like to see all parties united behind the simple proposition that tax cuts make us a more prosperous society. I only hope that they learn the lesson in respect of the other parts of the Union and the other taxes.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I certainly believe that we need to be very prudent in our expenditure, but we also need to allow people to have more of their own money in their pockets, and we want to see prosperity across the United Kingdom. I certainly want to see that achieved. After we have gone to the 20% corporation tax there has, rather worryingly, been some talk of moving back to 21%. That would be a retrograde step and I trust it will be put to bed this afternoon because it would have implications for the block grant for Northern Ireland. We need to get that clarified.

Businesses throughout my constituency tell me that corporation tax could be a game-changer, or at least assist in our genuine efforts for growth. Those who have in the past opposed the devolution of corporation tax stated that this would assist only large multinational companies, yet Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that a reduction in corporation tax in Northern Ireland would affect some 34,000 companies of all sizes, including 26,500 small and medium-sized enterprises.

As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, corporation tax is not a silver bullet that will transform the economy of Northern Ireland, but it allows us to go out with confidence on to the world stage and sell Northern Ireland without being undercut by our neighbours in the Irish Republic. I accept that other economic reforms are necessary. We need to train and upskill our work force, and focus on skills and competiveness, and strengthen our infrastructure, thereby achieving a stronger economy and a higher standard of living for all our constituents.

I welcome today’s debate. I am disappointed in the Minister’s response to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and supported by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). However, we are getting an opportunity to assist the Northern Ireland Executive in gaining greater power to rebalance the economy and boost employment and growth by attracting more high-quality investment. Opportunity awaits us. To do nothing is unacceptable; to do our best is honourable.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The essence of the charge is that not enough has been done to address tax evasion or tax avoidance, but the reality is that this Government have consistently cleared up the mess that we inherited. It was the case that wealthy people could avoid paying stamp duty land tax—we have sorted that problem. It used to be the case that aggressive tax avoidance schemes were prevalent, meaning that people could sit on the cash for years while cases dragged through the courts—that has now been addressed through accelerated payments. It used to be the case that remuneration could be disguised through loans and other instruments and that no income tax would be paid—we have fixed that, although the Labour party voted against it.

This Government have enabled HMRC to increase yields from £17 billion in 2010 to £26 billion this year, which is dramatic progress. Just as we have dealt with tax avoidance, we are dealing with tax evasion—we are seeing progress on the exchange of information—and that is a very big improvement on everything we inherited.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is this not further proof that Labour’s fundamental changes to banking regulation at the beginning of its period in government did a lot of damage and meant that banks could not be regulated properly—most notably, they led to the collapse of a number of HSBC’s important competitors—and further evidence that Labour Members are blaming this Government for things that went wrong on their watch?

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are many issues that Labour Members should apologise for, but the one issue that they have apologised for was their failures in bank regulation, and this is further evidence of that.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

When I was elected, one of my first actions was to visit local schools because I felt that I should do my bit to pass on our proud British democratic tradition. Far from finding those schools filled with apathy and ignorance, I found classrooms filled with young people who were alive with anger and who believed, as the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) said, that their futures had been sold down the river by fiscally irresponsible government. At that point it was hard to reassure them. Fiscal tightening and public sector reforms are difficult to sell to young people who are making decisions about GCSEs, apprenticeships and UCAS applications. They felt that they were bearing the brunt of economically incompetent decisions in which they had no say. Today when I visit the very same schools, I can tell pupils of a falling deficit and record employment. Where they live, youth unemployment has fallen by 76%, more than 3,000 new businesses have started up, and 2,240 new apprentices have started since 2010.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend remember Labour’s gloomy predictions that our economic policies would deliver mass and rising unemployment? Instead, they have delivered record levels of new jobs for young people in her constituency.

[Nicola Blackwood]

I do indeed. I can also tell those young people that we are investing in their future through the Oxfordshire city deal and growth deal—not through centrally mandated planning committees, but through universities, local further education colleges, and future employers—and that local authorities of all stripes are working together to develop our own long-term local economic plan. We are targeting that funding exactly where it will stimulate growth and jobs—infrastructure, skills training, local business support, and urgently needed housing and flood defences. That twin message of more jobs and growth alongside targeted local investment is possible only because of the essential precondition mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Incredibly difficult decisions on spending cuts across Government have been made with one end in sight: reducing our deficit while reforming our public services and protecting front-line services. That is why I support the motion.

If we do not commit to continuing along that path and maintaining fiscal consolidation and the public sector reforms necessary to bring our public finances back to health, and to boosting growth and wages in a sustainable way, rather than the chaotic manner outlined by the shadow Chancellor, our economic recovery will falter and we will lose the hard-won gains we have already made. Already, thanks to Labour’s billions of pounds of undisclosed tax rises and unfunded spending commitments, the single biggest risk factor facing markets is political instability, as economists consider the chaotic consequences of a Labour Government with the shadow Chancellor at the helm once again, free to borrow and tax us back into recession and rising unemployment. I for one am not prepared to go back to those schools and explain how we got halfway through the work of restoring our national finances, only to fail to complete the job.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate, which is vital. It goes to the heart of the views of this Government and the next Government on fiscal policy. It is about much more, however. It is about the job prospects of people in Macclesfield and the north-west, and millions of people across the country. It is about the prospects of young people getting on to the property ladder. It is about the financial future and how we secure it for people who are planning for retirement or are already in retirement. It also deals with the issue, which many Members have touched on, of who will be tackling the mountain of debt we have faced since the recession. Are we going to pass the buck to the next generation, or is this generation going to do the right thing and tackle the debt burden in the years ahead?

We want to see action now and continue to see public finances getting back under control. The charter for budget responsibility will help the country to achieve that ambition. I support the Government’s aims to see debt fall as a share of GDP by 2016-17, and to return the cyclically adjusted current budget to balance by 2017-18. Those objectives do not, I admit, roll off the tongue, but the impact of turning the deficit into surplus and reducing the burden of debt is vital to bringing our country’s public finances back under control. That is where they need to be. Furthermore, the charter will help people decide which party is serious about getting our public finances under control. There will be a clear choice for voters on 7 May. There is only one party serious about tackling the deficit, getting our house in order and delivering the sustainable economic growth that is so important, and that is the Conservative party.

[Mr Redwood]

Did my hon. Friend hear the shadow Chancellor make it clear that not only does Labour not think that the current debt is excessive, but it would carry on increasing the debt every year of the next Parliament if it was leading it?

[David Rutley]

It always does. It is as if there is a drug that Labour is addicted to called “debt”; they cannot get away from it.

I was fortunate to serve on the Treasury Committee in 2010 when the OBR and the charter for budget responsibility were established, and I spoke in a debate in May 2011 that brought greater insight into Government policy, greater transparency and more trust. I was pleased to participate in it and highlight how the OBR had very quickly become—it still is—an important reference point. Since those early days of the Parliament, which seem a long time ago now, the Government have made clear progress on their long-term economic plan: on economic growth; job creation—1.8 million jobs over this Parliament; unemployment; deficit reduction—down by 50%; and reducing the rate at which the debt is growing. Their ambition and achievement are unprecedented.

Those were important tasks, but the progress has not been without challenges. The OBR, which has been much referenced by Members on both sides of the House, has highlighted how deep the recession was—much deeper than originally anticipated—and how the challenges in the eurozone contributed to the challenges faced by the Government. However, positive progress has been made, and it is vital that the charter be renewed, because further consolidation is required. We need to finish the job of getting public spending firmly under control, as was spelled out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley). I support that view. Lower spending will lower the deficit and enable us to lower taxes for working people, which is something that Conservative Members feel passionate about.

Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who has been broadly quoted, highlighted in The Times today something that has not been pointed out, which is that this approach is also vital to get the country’s finances better prepared for any future economic crises or recessions. We have to learn the lessons of the economic crisis we are emerging from. This Government have, but the Labour party clearly has not. I will be supporting the charter today because it is critical that we get our finances under control. The Government have found a way forward, and the long-term economic plan is delivering. The charter will take us a step closer to achieving our important ambitions for businesses and the public of this great country, and I will be supporting it.

Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

There may be a slight impact on house prices, but we must put that in context. Many factors determine house prices, and on the evidence before us our view is that the changes will not have a significant impact on the overall level of house prices. They are likely to have a bigger impact on removing some of those dead zones and distortions in the housing market, which is beneficial in creating a more efficient and effective housing market.

The reform has been welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House and by outside bodies, including the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Institute of Directors and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Jonathan Isaby, from the TaxPayers Alliance, called it:

“an early Christmas present for young people looking to get on the housing ladder.”

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister comment on the impact on revenue? He may collect more revenue where rates have been cut, but lose revenue at the top end.

[Mr Gauke]

That is not our assessment. My right hon. Friend is an eloquent and distinguished advocate of the argument that it is possible to raise more revenue by reducing rates, and he has over many years demonstrated cases where that would apply. I do not believe that we will quite see that dynamic effect to that extent in this case. I think more revenue, and certainly a greater proportion of it, will be raised from properties above £2 million. Undoubtedly, we will see a few more transactions, which will mean additional revenue that would otherwise not come in. On balance, we will see a reduction overall in revenue across the SDLT regime, but we believe that that is none the less the right thing to do to ensure that we deliver a reform that benefits the vast majority of people who pay SDLT.

Under the rules as they applied on 3 December, the amount of tax payable was a percentage of the chargeable consideration—the purchase price—for the acquisition of the property. Different scales of percentages, table A and table B, applied respectively to transactions consisting wholly of residential property and to transactions that consisted of, or included, non-residential property. The clause substitutes a new table A, setting out the new tax rates and bands that apply to a transaction consisting wholly of residential property. It also amends the calculation rules for those transactions, so that each rate of tax applies only to that part of the consideration that falls within the relevant band. The total tax due is then the sum of the amounts of each band.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I will keep my remarks brief. I have spoken in each previous debate and do not have a great deal to add. My party very much supports these measures and, as I have said in previous debates, dealing with the slab system that we had and the consequent cliff edges and removing the incentives for strange behaviour and sub-optimal activity has to be the right thing to do.

I have only one point to add, which partly follows on from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and the assessments of the Office for Budget Responsibility. I would have thought that the taxation of a fixed asset transfer like this, with the certainty that that implies, would mean this is a very low risk method of changing a tax system, but if the OBR regards it as medium to high risk, and if the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting there may be more complex effects that I have not understood, I would like the Minister to clarify whether I am missing something. I would have thought this was a very straightforward way of raising taxes in a highly certain manner—and certainty is, of course, one of the hallmarks of a good tax system.

I will not detain the Committee any longer. Our party supports these measures. They affect 98% of the population favourably, and, broadly speaking, the other 2% are millionaires, and therefore those with the broadest shoulders. I am pleased that through this Bill this Government have found yet another way to help deliver a small amount of redistribution, with the pain felt by those with the broadest shoulders. The support for it is universal in my constituency, as I think everybody will be a winner. Overall, these measures will lead to a more liquid housing market and therefore a stronger economy, and they also make the system fairer.

[Mr Redwood]

First, may I remind the Committee that, as listed in the register of Members’ interests, I provide advice to an industrial company and an investment company?

The Minister has produced what is on the whole an excellent scheme. I support most of it and was one of those, along with my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who was lobbying hard to get this major reform through. I congratulate the Minister and the Chancellor on dealing with the problems that the slab system created. The peaks and the dead areas were damaging to the property market and made it difficult for some people to buy or sell properties in certain price ranges. The system probably distorted pricing as well, to the benefit of some people and the detriment of others. It is therefore good that we have smoothed it out and introduced a more sensible progression up to £937,000, where most of the transactions lie. The new arrangements will represent a fairer, lower-cost system for practically all transactions, which is wholly admirable.

I want to tease out a little more information about the rather pessimistic forecasts of how much revenue will be lost up to the end of this decade. It is clear from the figures that cutting the higher rate of income tax has produced considerable extra revenue, as it was bound to do, given that the previous rate deterred people or meant that they did not come here at all. It is also clear from the figures that the much higher rate of capital gains tax has been very damaging to revenues, which are still miles below where they were prior to the crash. This is a difficult one to call, and I am not saying to the Minister that the proposals would either damage or increase revenues. I am merely suggesting that the Treasury’s forecasts for that lengthy time period could prove to be inaccurate, and that it would be nice to unpack those forecasts in order to understand what the Treasury thinks is going on.

The problem with trying to forecast the revenues at this juncture is that, on the one hand, we have seen a slowing of the mortgage market in recent months through regulatory intervention, and we would therefore expect fewer transactions because the regulators and the banks are now being much tougher about mortgages. On the other hand, however, we have Government intervention trying to mitigate that effect through the very successful and helpful Help to Buy scheme, which I believe to be necessary. It is certainly helping people in my area to buy their own home. However, the net result of these arrangements seems to be a dampening of transactions, and we must bear that in mind when trying to judge the impact of those policies and to assess the impact of the stamp duty change. All things being equal, we should expect to see an increase in the volume of transactions under the £937,000 level because buying such homes will be a bit cheaper, and in certain price bands we will see activity occurring that would not have occurred at all because of the slab effect.

[Mrs Main]

Does my right hon. Friend share the optimism that I feel, having talked to small businesses in my community, that there could be a knock-on effect from people having a bit more money to carry out home improvements? Those businesses have suffered in recent years because people have not been investing in their own homes.

[Mr Redwood]

Yes, indeed there could.

This is difficult to predict, because all these things need to be modelled. The level of the reduction in some cases is quite large, and it will be difficult to make up for all that lost revenue through increased transactions. That is why it would be interesting to probe the Treasury a little more on its forecasts. I expect it thinks that there will be quite a big revenue gain where the rate has gone up, but that effect might not prove to be as strong as it hopes, because there will definitely be a disincentive effect at the top end following the introduction of the very top rate for the privileged few who can afford those types of properties. Those people are often in the fortunate position of owning more than one property, and of being able to decide whether they wish to buy property in this country or elsewhere. There will be some kind of disincentive effect, and we need to look at relative taxes and relative prices in relation to London and other centres.

It would therefore help if we knew a little more about the Treasury’s numbers at this stage of the debate, so that when we review this policy in a year or two, we can see what was right and what was wrong. For example, does the Treasury think that there will be extra revenue from the higher rate? That has clearly not been the case in relation to the two big taxes that I have mentioned. Does it envisage a loss of revenue despite the effect on transactions at the lower level? It would be good to have more detail, so that we can have some benchmarks as we try to assess the financial impact of the policy.

[Mr Gauke]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this short debate on clause 1, and I shall attempt to address as many as possible of their questions. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) raised a number of points about the impact of the changes. First, let me deal with her question about HMRC’s handling of inquiries. I do not have all the detailed numbers available, but, as I mentioned earlier, about 1.25 million hits have been made on the HMRC calculator, which is a substantial number. There have been relatively few queries made over the telephone or in writing. In practice the great majority of those can be dealt with by HMRC’s stamp tax helpline or by reference to ongoing guidance. More complex queries are escalated to HMRC’s technical specialists. As I say, I cannot give the numbers but I do know that the view within HMRC is that this process has gone smoothly, including in respect of the helpline provided on the day of the autumn statement, when, as has been pointed out, a number of transactions were accelerated in order to benefit from the transitional regime. All that has gone smoothly and I am not aware of any particular difficulties in that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend brings me to an important point, which is that, over the course of this Parliament, the Government have been determined to address stamp duty land tax avoidance. It was a problem in the tax system. One certainly heard both anecdotally, and in the concerns of HMRC, of transactions being made to envelope properties and so on, which is why in 2012 we announced the introduction of the annual tax on envelope dwellings. It is why, over the course of this Parliament, we have taken a number of actions to deal with that avoidance. Had we not done so, it would have been difficult to make the reforms that we have in front of us today in an affordable way, as we would not effectively have been able to raise additional revenue from the top end of the housing market to counteract the reductions in revenue that will occur in the rest of the market.

Increasing rates would not have led to much, if anything, by way of additional revenue, because we would have found that it would have increased avoidance activity and we would not have got in the money that we would otherwise have done. As a consequence, the costs would have been unaffordable.

[Mr Redwood]

Are there not two obvious ways in which certain groups of people in the higher value properties decide not to pay this tax? The first is people who are in a two to three-bedroom flat or a small house in a very expensive part of the UK, normally London, may decide that they do not want to swap properties or downsize or upsize because it is too expensive. The other is that the very rich people at the top end coming in from abroad may decide that this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back on the transaction. Some people might welcome that but it could still be a behavioural impact of this particular provision.

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that there will be behavioural responses. Some people might be dissuaded from entering into a transaction and decide to remain in the same place as a consequence of a higher level of duty. There may also be an impact on the attractiveness of the UK as a place in which to locate, but as he is well aware, that is but one factor among very many. I can think of greater threats to the attractiveness of the UK. I should not get drawn into what those threats may be, but they certainly exist. I am tempted to turn to the Opposition’s mansion tax, but I dare say you would haul me into line, Mrs Riordan, so let me not be drawn into what others might say. There is much I want to say, but it would probably not be in order.

I hope that my remarks are helpful to the Committee, and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 2

Citation, commencement and transitional provision etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I, too, support the Bill because it is a move in the right direction. I strongly welcome the decision to get rid of the slab structure, against which I and others have lobbied strenuously for some time, and it is good that the Government have listened.

However, given that many of us believe in the virtues of home ownership, it is a pity that we still need a tax on home ownership at all. I welcome the fact that it is now lower, but I do not welcome the fact that we still seem to need a tax on home ownership. It is a great pity when we have to tax good aspirations in our community. Many of my constituents are now fortunate enough to own their own home, but there is a new generation who wish to do so, and this is still a high tax on them which they have to find a way of financing.

I hope that in future Budgets, as the long-term economic plan produces its magic and as we get rid of the deficit, we can return to this tax. The rates are still very high and it is a tax on one of the most essential things that families need. They need shelter; they need housing. The preferred type of housing for most people in our country is to own their own home, and this is still quite a large tax on home ownership. I know that the Minister and his colleagues are working away to ease the burden wherever they can in the straitened financial times we live in, and I know that they have a number of schemes to promote home ownership.

I urge my hon. Friend to do everything he can to promote home ownership because owning that first home makes such a difference to people’s lives. It gives them something to be proud of and it means that they can look forward to an old age not facing a rent bill, when they have at last repaid the mortgage and can truly call their home their own. It is very galling for them if a big chunk of the mortgage is paying Government taxes, so I welcome this small step to make home ownership a bit more affordable.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Consumer Rights Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Consumer Rights Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 28 January 2014 in the last Session of Parliament (Consumer Rights Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 13 May 2014 in that Session (Consumer Rights Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: Nos. 12, 1 to 11 and 13 to 78.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Jo Swinson.)

Question agreed to.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the motion. I congratulate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor on the help that they are giving to home buyers. I thank the Financial Secretary for listening, not just to the concerns of Members, particularly on the Government Benches, about stamp duty, but about how the Government may implement the policy. The Government have done absolutely the right thing to effect this policy immediately.

Back in the dark days of the great recession under Labour in 2009, when I was conveyancing residential property, the property market was on its knees. The Government of the day brought in a very welcome stamp duty holiday. That said, there were six or seven weeks between its announcement—at the Budget, I believe—and its implementation, depressing further an already very depressed property market. So I welcome what the Government have done and my hon. Friend’s taking on board those points.

The Government have taken the right approach to dealing with the problems associated with stamp duty. The major problem was the slab rate and the effect that it had, not just for people buying property who have to pay the stamp duty, but for people selling property. Those selling property at an asking price of £255,000, £265,000 or £275,000 have for some time been faced with the prospect of either having to do some dodgy deal involving carpets, curtains and other chattels, in which after the Finance Act 2004 and changes to stamp duty legislation most firms of solicitors were not willing to participate, or changing their price, often having to reduce it considerably, below the £250,000 mark, where 1% stamp duty would be payable and the buyer would have to pay £2,500 rather than £7,500. The reform will make a massive difference to people selling property.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

One of the most persuasive points that we were able to make to the Chancellor when we lobbied him was that there were bands in the market where there were effectively no transactions at all because people could not get buyers to pay that little bit extra. That was distorting the value of their homes.

[Mr Jones]

I agree. Some of the people in that position will probably have enough equity now to move on and buy second and third homes. The measure will be extremely valuable to such people.

Stamp Duty (Housing Market)

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

That can also happen.

We need to look at the slab rate again and to consider the distorting effect that it has on the market and the difficulties that it causes people, whether buying or selling—for people who want to sell because they want to downsize, or people who want to sell because they want to move on. That is one of the reasons why some of the suggestions that I have heard over the years to charge stamp duty to the seller would also be completely inappropriate and unacceptable; it would place a massive burden on those trying to sell the investment that they have often worked for over many years.

I make a final plea to Ministers. If they are ever minded to make any changes to how stamp duty is charged or to its rates, will they be extremely careful about how they do it? Back in the dark days of the great Labour recession in 2008, following pressure from the Conservative party, the then Prime Minister and Chancellor decided to create a stamp duty holiday. They announced it with great fanfare in the press and on the media, but it was probably six or seven weeks before the policy was implemented.

I can tell hon. Members that a flat property market was depressed further, because people did not want to conduct transactions between when that announcement was made and when the measure came in, because that would not make financial sense and they could save money. I implore Ministers to make any changes carefully and to consider the implications for the overall housing market, which is extremely important to our economy. The housing market is now on the move, which is part of the reason why our services sector in this country is doing so well.

I ask Ministers to consider the issue extremely carefully. It affects not only the south-east or London, but all parts of the country in differing ways. It creates massive distortion, because of the slab rate. I ask the Minister to consider it carefully not only in reply to the debate, but in his work on our party manifesto.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. I say to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that it is slightly unconventional to come into the Chamber halfway through the debate; as he is aware, other people have spoken and a debate is normally about exchanging views and listening to other people. On this occasion, however, we have plenty of time and I will still call him.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am grateful, Mr Betts, and I give my apologies to you and to the Chamber, but my constituents also wanted me to make it clear that Wokingham supported the puppies motion in the main Chamber. I felt that I had to do that first, before coming to debate the important issue of stamp duty. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who proposed it as a subject for debate. I supported her, so it would have been wrong not to attend and pledge my support.

I have three main reasons to advance for why the Government should do something to reduce the imposition of individual stamp duty on property transactions. First, the existing stamp duty regime has an adverse impact on home ownership, which the Government should wish to promote. Secondly, the regime does not optimise the revenues; we could get more revenue out of stamp duty if we had lower and different rates. Thirdly, it distorts the housing market adversely, meaning that many people are deterred from buying and selling and from obtaining the kind of housing that they most need or want by the extra charges that the Government have imposed on this most essential of goods and services.

I strongly support the Government in their wish to see home ownership promoted. As they are well aware, however, in many parts of the country house prices are high relative to incomes and have been rising in recent months as a result of the Government’s success in stimulating credit, transactions and activity in the economy again.

Although we welcome the general growth and that upward movement, as well as the fact that some extra houses are now being built, the Government must be aware that housing is extremely expensive for many people who wish to get on the first rung of the housing ladder or who would like to trade up from a smaller house to a location where they can accommodate their children and make a good family home for them.

One reason for that expense is that many people now face paying stamp duty on quite modest homes. Such people are often not rich but are having to pay substantial sums—many thousands of pounds—to the Government for the privilege of getting their first home or moving to a home that is more suited to their needs. I would hope that the Government would want to find a way of easing the burden on people who wish to buy their first home or the right home for their family, particularly if that can be done without having much or any adverse impact on revenues.

My second reason is that if we look at the pattern of stamp duties, we see that the Government have not got total revenues back to their level prior to the crash, yet we now have extra higher rates in the system. We should ask whether the rates are now acting as a kind of deterrent to people undertaking transactions, particularly at the top end of the market, leading to revenues being depressed. We need to bear in mind that in the most expensive parts of the country—indeed, in large areas of the country—house prices are now at or higher than their level before the crash. Stamp duty on shares is now also reflecting the fact that share prices are back at new highs thanks to the success of the general economic policy. There is a case for saying that we would get more transactions if we had a different structure of rates or, in some cases, lower rates, and that there would be a volume offset to the obvious loss on individual transactions.

The third reason is the damage being done to the general market. I know quite a few people who would like to move down the housing ladder—their families have left home and they could do with a smaller place—but the total costs of the transaction put them off. The fact that the buyer has to pay a large stamp duty on the house they are going to buy might be a further deterrent to the transaction taking place at all, because that will affect market prices.

We can see an obvious market distortion because the Government have inherited and lived with the slab-rate approach to stamp duty taxation. If someone moves from trying to buy a flat or house at £125,000 to trying to buy one at £125,001, they suddenly have to pay £1,250 in tax, whereas they pay none when the price is £1 lower. At the £250,000 threshold, there is a sudden slab increase of £5,000 in extra tax if the flat or house someone is trying to buy goes up from £250,000 to £250,001, and at the £500,000 threshold there is a £5,000 increase if the price goes up by £1. In practice, people will not try to sell properties at £250,000 plus a little bit or at £500,000 and a little bit, because the huge increase in tax incurred when that threshold is crossed makes that unrealistic.

We therefore now have zombie price ranges in the marketplace, in which there are very few or no transactions. People hold fire: if they have a property worth £250,000, and the market is rising, they think, “Well, I’ll wait until it is worth £275,000 or £300,000. I won’t sell now because it will be very difficult to sell at £255,000: everyone will want to knock me down by £5,000 or so, to avoid the big increase in stamp duty.” We are creating a distortion, which is another reason why there are parts of the market in which people are much more reluctant to bring their properties to the market at all, because the stamp duty is getting in the way of proper price formation.

What could be the answer to all those problems? I do not like taxes very much at all, as the Minister knows, but I know that our constituents want good schools and good hospitals, and that those cost money; I also know that we are still borrowing too much as a country. The Minister therefore has a problem and needs to maintain revenues from a variety of sources. We need a system that still enables him to collect revenue from property—that is the situation he inherited and that is the current need—but we also need one that is more likely to produce a bit more revenue while easing some of the burdens.

My first suggestion, then, is that we taper the tax rather than having a slab rate. If we put in a taper, it would make homes more affordable at £125,000 to £150,000 and at £250,000 to £300,000. The market would start to clear again in those quite popular price ranges, which are currently being restricted or removed altogether. That would also help with extra transactions.

That is how I would start off. The Minister will doubtless have some figures from his Treasury model claiming that that would produce too big a revenue loss. He will also know, however, that the Treasury has always been wildly pessimistic about any kind of Laffer effect on taxation and that the policy of cutting top-rate income tax from 50% to 45% has produced a massive surge of revenue. There was obviously no loss there, but in fact quite a big increase. Conversely, we know that moving the capital gains tax rate up from 18% to 28% has done a lot of damage to revenues and did not produce the expected increase.

The same could be true of stamp duty. We need to experiment. The Minister could try the idea at one or other of the thresholds, rather than the whole lot, if he is really nervous and cannot get the Treasury numbers changed, but we need to find out. I think I will be right. I would start at the lowest end, because that is where most people are affected and where affordability is the biggest issue of all. I urge the Minister to do that. We need more home ownership, which means having a lower and a different profile of tax, and better market clearing so that people can buy and sell and have the property they want of the size they want, which will also help. I urge him to do it for the revenue as well.

Finance Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to start the Report stage of the Finance Bill, Mr Speaker. We had many good and long debates in the Bill Committee, and I am sure we will continue that trend over the next couple of days.

The new clause, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish within three months of the passing of this legislation a report on the additional rate of income tax—the top rate, which was 50p until last year, when it was cut by this Government to 45p. The report we envisage would set out the impact on Exchequer receipts of an additional rate, set at 50p, in the first year of the next Parliament. The Chancellor would also be required to set out the impact of reducing the additional rate for last year, 2013-14, and the amount of income tax paid by all additional rate payers, those with incomes over £250,000 a year and those with incomes over £1 million a year. Finally, the report would set out the impact of the reduction in the additional rate in 2013-14 on the level of bonuses awarded in April 2013 to employees in the financial sector.

Since the coalition Budget of 2012, we have had a number of debates on the Floor of the House and in Public Bill Committee on the Government’s decision to cut the additional rate from 50p to 45p. Indeed, the Minister has referred to such debates being an annual event during the passage of the Finance Bill. Why is it so important that we continue to press the Government on this one decision, made in 2012, after they have refused to listen to all and any attempts to get them to change course? It is because if there is one decision taken by the Government that tells us all we need to know about their priorities and who they stand for, this is it.

The Government who said, “We’re all in it together,” and the Chancellor who promised that he would not balance the books on the backs of the poor, saw fit to give, at a time when ordinary working people were seeing their living standards fall and when the combined impact of tax and benefits changes has left households on average more than £974 a year worse off, an absolutely huge tax cut to the wealthiest in our country. For millionaires, this tax cut is worth an average of £100,000—a vast sum, far out of reach for the majority of working people. So although this may appear to be simply an annual event and part of the House’s debates on the Finance Bill, it is much more than that. This Government made a bad choice—the wrong choice—when they prioritised a tax cut for millionaires while ordinary working people continued to struggle as a result of their decisions, and we will not let them forget it.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

How does the hon. Lady explain the fact that income inequality rose under Labour and has fallen under the coalition?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is here. I recall in the debate in Committee of the whole House that he argued for a further cut in the rate to 40p, citing in evidence the increase in revenues resulting from the cut, but as he should know—I am sure he does—that is a result of bonuses being deferred. I shall return to that point, but I think it tells us all we know about where the Government stand on fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a good contribution, which I agree with.

[Mr Redwood]

The Government have published all the figures and they show that after the tax cut the better-off are paying more, not less.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Government have published one set of figures from only one year’s data. Much more data are now available for a further, more comprehensive review to be carried out, and the Government should do so. If they have nothing to hide, and if they are confident that they have made the right decision, they should submit that to scrutiny.

Returning to data and yield from the 50p rate, we know from the Government’s own assessment that the cost of cutting the rate from 50p to 45p was more than £3 billion, excluding all behavioural changes. In Treasury terms, £3 billion is a big deal, so how could the tax cut be justified? Well, the Government say that most of that potential £3 billion revenue would effectively be lost as a result of tax avoidance, the so-called behavioural change effect. Having assessed revenue lost as a result of tax avoidance and other behavioural change, the Government go on to say that the cost to the Exchequer of cutting the rate to 45p is only £100 million. So, on the Government’s figures, an additional rate of tax set at 50p would raise only £100 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman has made that point in previous debates, and I repeat the answer that I gave then. We have said that we would increase the rate to 50p in the next Parliament as we get the deficit down. I could not be clearer than that.

It is the richest in our country who are benefiting the most from the recovery delivered by the Government. The return of economic growth has overwhelmingly benefited the top 1%, as shown by analysis of HMRC figures by the House of Commons Library, which covered the year when GDP growth returned and the top rate of income tax on earnings over £150,000 was reduced. The share of post-tax income of the top 1% of taxpayers—300,000 people—rose from 8.2% in 2012-13 to 9.8% in 2013-14. Yet during the same period, the bottom 90%— 27 million taxpayers—have seen their share of post-tax income fall.

This cut to the 50p rate cannot be justified when the deficit is high and will not be eliminated towards the end of the next Parliament. Labour in government will increase the rate back to 50p to help us to get the deficit down in a fairer way. Just as we have said that we want the Office for Budget Responsibility to have powers to audit manifestos ahead of the next general election, because we believe that that scrutiny will add to public understanding about the choices that are being made—a call the Government only last week rejected—so too we think that a report as envisaged by the new clause would help the public to understand the impact of the top rate of tax so that they can make up their own minds about who is standing up for them and other working people like them.

[Mr Redwood]

Let me deal first with an old canard from the Labour Benches that is simply untrue and unfair: the idea that Conservatives welcome tax cuts for the rich, but do not think that tax cuts are appropriate for anybody else. Government Members believe strongly that tax cuts work for everybody, and that is why the Government have given back a lot of tax revenue to people on low pay by taking them out of tax altogether. We have supported and welcomed that, and that is where the missing revenue that Labour worries about is concentrated.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are taking many low-income people out of tax. But he must recognise that by raising value added tax, the least progressive of taxes, which everyone purchasing goods has to pay, regardless of their income, they are increasing the burden on the lowest paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

VAT is not as regressive as the hon. Lady suggests, because I am pleased to say that important items, such as food and children’s clothes, are VAT exempt, which makes it a little less unpalatable. I agree with her that all tax rises are bad news, but they are a necessity given the large deficit that we inherited, and when some important public services need financing. I also entirely agree with Labour that, given that we have a large deficit and need to spend money on important benefits and public services, we need to get that money from the rich and the better off. They are the people with money, and we have to find the best way to get the money off them.

[David Wright]

Why is the right hon. Gentleman so scared of the new clause? All it does is request a report. Surely he supports the idea of having a report on these issues so that we can get to the bottom of the matter.

[Mr Redwood]

If I am given a chance to develop my argument, I hope I will satisfy any independent-minded people on the Labour Benches that we already have the evidence. We have had a long-term experiment on this very subject, which satisfies some Conservative Members that the way to get more money off the rich is to set a rate that they are prepared to pay and will stay and pay. If the rate is set too high, they leave. If the rate is set too high, their clever lawyers and accountants find entirely legal ways to pay rather less tax than we would like.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) did not answer my intervention when I asked her to confirm that the Red Book has made it clear that after the cut in the rate, the amount that the better off and the rich paid went up—of course it did. That is the experience we would expect. The hon. Lady is left trying to say that there are special reasons. I will give her this point: it is probably best to judge these things over a longer period than a year or two. One can get odd variations, which is why I want to give the evidence to the House that it has clearly forgotten, which relates to the big reductions in top rate tax that were put through in the 1980s. The Conservative Government reduced the top rate of tax in two stages, from 83% to 60% and then from 60% to 40%, and the Labour Government kept that rate right up until they knew that they would lose office. They were wise to do so, because over those years the amount of cash paid by the rich went up, the real-terms amount of tax paid by the rich went up and the proportion of total income tax revenue paid by the rich went up. What is not to like about that treble win?

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that if the top rate of tax was too high people would leave—I presume he meant that they would leave the country. How many rich people have returned to the country as a result of the top rate being reduced from 50p to 45p?

[Mr Redwood]

We will be able to answer that question in due course, because these are still early days, but there are encouraging signs that more revenue is coming in from the rich. We will know the results of the latest experiment later, but we know fully the results of the 1980s tax cuts. They were clear enough to convince not only all sensible Conservative MPs at the time, who were happy to vote for the tax cuts and kept them throughout their period in office, but, more importantly, the long-running Chancellor of the Exchequer who took office in 1997 and held it for a decade before becoming Prime Minister. He is not an easy man to convince to be nice to the rich. I think that he decided to run with that tax rate because he was entirely convinced that he would get more money out of the rich at 40% than he would at 83% or 60%.

[Steve McCabe]

Does not the evidence show that any increase in the tax paid by the rich is the result of their share of income rising at the same time as everyone else’s living standards are falling?

[Mr Redwood]

The main reason they pay more tax, of course, is that they generate and declare more income here, which is surely what we want them to do. If the Labour party is with me so far in wanting decent public services, and if it is with me in accepting that the money for those services has to come from the better-off, because by definition we do not want to tax the poor, then surely it is with me in wanting to have more rich people here to venture, save, put their money at risk and to make more money with their money so that there is more of it to tax. This country is now very dependent on income tax from the top group of earners, who produce 30% of income tax, and on the capital gains tax, stamp duty and other taxes that apply mainly to rich people with big assets. That is sustaining public services. It is very important that Members of this House, who might not like those people—clearly the Labour party dislikes them intensely—recognise that they are very useful members of society and that their revenue is crucial to being able to redistribute money across the country. If Labour Members wish to have more equality, they must think about the optimising rate. Surely it is best to try to find the rate that maximises revenue, rather than a penal rate that satisfies people’s sense of jealousy—or whatever it is—about those who have or make a lot of money.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about the Labour party disliking rich people intensely and should retract that statement. If he is not prepared to do so, perhaps he will explain why many people feel that his party dislikes ordinary families and poor families intensely, as highlighted by their policies.

[Mr Redwood]

That is simply not true. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Lady likes rich people—there are quite a few in her party, so let us hope she gets on well with them—but it is absolutely false to suggest that Conservatives have no interest in people who are out of tax altogether or who are on low incomes; we are desperately concerned that they should get better educational standards and have more opportunities so that they can get a job and then go on to get a better job. We wish them well, and we are very keen to work with all those in our constituencies so that they can take advantage of opportunities. We would like them to be on higher incomes. In the meantime, unlike the Government she supported, we have taken many more of those people out of tax altogether, because we think that those on an income of less than £10,000 a year should not have to pay tax. They will probably be receiving some benefit assistance.

Another point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood did not respond to was the fact that the latest figures show that inequality rose under the Labour Government but has actually fallen a bit under the coalition, mainly because we have taken an awful lot of people at the lower end of the income scale out of tax. We have a very progressive system: the income tax system now exempts anybody on less than £10,000 and has a 47% rate, if we take national insurance as well on the highest incomes; and the benefit system rightly gives a lot of money to people at the low end of the scale and should not give any money to people at the top end.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of assertions in his last few sentences. I wonder whether he has seen the report published this week by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which states that the cuts in child benefit and tax credits

“have typically created losses double the amount of tax allowance gain for working couples, and nearly four times the amount for working lone parents.”

I wonder whether he has seen the latest HMRC report, which states that the Gini coefficient started to rise significantly in 2012-13.

[Mr Redwood]

The figures I have been using refer to the whole coalition period and show a reduction in inequality, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome. I do not recognise his figures on the child tax changes. The overall effect of taking a lot of people out of tax has been a very positive impact on their net incomes, as we would hope.

[Ian Murray]

If the right hon. Gentleman disputes whether an increase in the additional rate of tax would bring in more money, does he agree with the new clause’s call for a report? If it shows that the 50p tax rate brings in more money, will he and his Conservative colleagues advocate increasing it again?

[Mr Redwood]

I thought that I had dealt with that point. As far as I am concerned, it was proven conclusively in the ’80s that taking the rate down from 83% to 40% increased the revenue very substantially and on a sustainable basis. That was sufficient to persuade the official Labour party—perhaps not some Labour colleagues here today—not to increase the tax rate from 40% throughout its long years in government until the very end.

[Bill Esterson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the economic circumstances are now rather different from those he is talking about. Surely we need a study, as the new clause proposes, to enable us to look at what is happening now.

[Mr Redwood]

I do not think that the economic circumstances were as different as the hon. Gentleman thinks. In the early ’80s the Conservative Government inherited an economic crisis from Labour, just as this Government did. There was a lot of unemployment and a big task in getting people back to work and getting the economy growing again, rather like today. The Government at the time managed to do that, just as this Government are, so I do not accept his point.

However, I find the fact that Labour is going backwards on these issues rather perturbing. Why can the modern Labour party not understand the basic points that the Labour party that was victorious between 1997 and 2010 understood fully? Why can it not understand that it is possible to take the tax rate too high and get less revenue? The Treasury has now accepted the doctrine of the Laffer curve and understands that putting the tax rate above the optimising rate would surely be a very foolish thing to do. It knows that that applies to capital gains tax, as it clearly does to income tax. I submit that 50% was well above the optimum rate, because we collected rather less revenue than many people would have liked. I welcome the fact that the Government have started to put that right.

I do not think that we need the study that the Labour party is recommending today, and I advise it to think again about what it learnt in the ’80s and ’90s but appears now to have forgotten. It shows that the former Labour Chancellor was clearly not crowd-pleasing when he refused to increase the rate from 40%—he was clearly antagonising many of his Back-Bench colleagues by not doing so—so there must have been a good reason for it. I think that reason was a sensible one: it would have raised less revenue, rather than more. I urge the Government to reject new clause 14.

[Rushanara Ali]

It is worth considering some of the context of our debate today on the Finance Bill. Almost 15 years ago, the then Labour Government introduced the national minimum wage. That historic measure increased the value of work for around 2 million people across the UK. At its heart was fairness and dignity for all at work. Yet today we are debating the impact of a substantial tax cut for 13,000 millionaires introduced by this Government. At a time when more than four out of five people surveyed in a recent Ipsos MORI poll said that they faced a cost of living crisis, the contrast cannot be overstated. It would be almost impossible to find so clear a contrast between the ambitions and motivations of two Governments. The bottom line in this debate is that the Government’s proposals in the Finance Bill do almost nothing to address the cost of living crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

I strongly support new clause 14. It would appear that the Treasury’s Orwellian motto is “Ignorance is strength”. It is not just that the Treasury will not have this study done, but it has not had it done and does not know the answer. The Government are clearly afraid of the answer; what have they got to hide? That is typical of the current Treasury position. On a number of occasions I have asked the Treasury what estimate it has made of the income that would come to it from the implementation of a Tobin tax or Robin Hood tax—a tax on financial transactions such as that being sensibly suggested by Mrs Merkel for the rest of Europe. The answer I get is that the Treasury has never made any such estimates. Having never made any estimate of the possible income—and apparently never estimating what it would cost the City of London—the Treasury nevertheless states that it would be fatal for the City to impose a tax of 0.05% on financial transactions, when every other business in the country pays a 20% tax on transactions known as VAT. It appears that the Treasury is into “Ignorance is strength”.

We constantly hear from those on the Tory Benches about the wonders of Mrs Thatcher and how we should follow her example, so I remind them that for nine of the 11 years that she was Prime Minister, the top rate of income tax was 60p in the pound. Apparently, people managed to pay it. Apparently the money came in, and even rich people did not need a greater incentive to turn up at work.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Frank Dobson]

No, I will not give way—[Interruption.] Well, I have sat here throughout the whole debate and listened to what other people had to say, so I am going to get a little further in.

One thing that is particularly irksome for badly off people in this country is hearing apologists for the City talking about bankers’ compensation packages—compensation apparently for the horrid requirement that they turn up at work. The dictionary definition of compensation is,

“recompense for loss, suffering or injury”.

Those bankers—how they suffer when they are helping people to swindle their tax liabilities; laundering money for gun runners or drug runners; or fiddling money to help people evade sanctions and then having to pay up. We clearly need to ensure that those rich people pay more tax, and the only way to do that is by increasing the rate to at least 50p.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I note the fact that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras referred to a rate of “at least 50p”, and I suspect that he speaks for many of his colleagues in that regard. The fact is that there is an ideological divide involved here, in that the Opposition want the higher rate, regardless of the practicalities.

The reality is that, if we want to raise money from the wealthiest, a high rate of income tax is ineffective. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made it clear that the changes in the 1980s resulted in more income being raised from the wealthiest. If we want to raise money from the wealthiest, there are much better ways of doing it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) said. For example, we have taken a number of steps to deal with avoidance and disguised remuneration—those measures were opposed by Labour, by the way—and to deal with stamp duty avoidance. We have increased stamp duty rates. We have also introduced measures relating to capital gains tax and restricted the cost of the pensions tax relief. Those measures have raised far more than the revenue forgone from the 50p rate.

We talk about priorities. Let me set out one fact for the House. Even if we put aside the additional sums raised from the wealthiest, and even if we put aside the damage to competitiveness from the 50p rate, for every £1 forgone as a result of our measures on the 50p rate, we have forgone £160 as a consequence of the increase in the personal allowance. That is where our priorities lie, and I am proud of that record.

[Mr Redwood]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Treasury publishes figures every month on tax collection, and that they show that the rich are paying more?

[Mr Gauke]

That is correct. It is a higher proportion than ever; it is more than was being received under Labour—

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

Without wishing simply to list the problems, it is salutary to remember recent scandals and the implications of them for people, including the mis-selling of interest rate swaps, which affected small businesses. Small businesses thought they were doing the right thing in trying to mitigate risks such as fluctuations in foreign exchange rates, but the largest banks have had to put aside more than £3 billion to provide against compensation claims by customers, which shows how serious that was.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady remind hon. Members how much she wants to raise from the tax in the first full year? What impact would it have on banks’ capacity to lend?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will come to that. In discussions I have had with banks they say that they want to lend and have the resources to do so, but some of the schemes have not necessarily encouraged people to come forward and have not been as successful as they might have wished. I have also heard the criticism from some banks, not all, that perhaps another levy or a different approach to the bankers bonus tax would have implications for capitalisation of the banks and so on. However, when we look at the scale of some of the bonus pots, it is difficult to make the argument that the money will not be there. The money appears to be there in some instances for excessive remuneration and bonuses, rather than other schemes.

Compensation costs for the mis-selling of payment protection insurance—the PPI scandal—have now reached £22 billion, an astonishing sum, with Lloyds alone incurring compensation costs not far short of £10 billion. Significant fines have been imposed on Barclays, RBS, Lloyds and Deutsche Bank for attempts to rig LIBOR, doing huge damage to the banks’ credibility and showing how important it is to change the culture and behaviour. That change has been much talked about, but has yet to be delivered entirely.

I am not trying to bash the bankers, as it is sometimes portrayed. I well understand the difficulties faced by front-line staff in the banks—the people in the lower tiers of the management system. They operated in and had to comply with the prevailing culture, and were set particular targets and given sales incentives. When we look back at that approach, we can begin to pinpoint the move away from the notion that the bank was there to look after people’s money, both individual depositors and local businesses, towards the retail culture, in which the emphasis was on selling and making profits without, in some instances, due care and attention to fiscal responsibilities and duties to the customer. I hope that changes brought about by recent legislation will see an end to that culture. Many of the banks are talking about that, and it will understandably take time, but we need the nudges, the pressures and the reminders, not just from the regulators, but through public opinion. Unless a watchful eye is kept on the banks, the change in culture will not necessarily succeed.

Despite having racked up billions of pounds in fines, several of the big banks still proposed significantly higher bonuses for 2013—the latest year for which figures are available—than for the previous year. They went up 10% to £2.4 billion at Barclays; up 8% at Lloyds to £395 million; and up 6% at HSBC to £2.3 billion. RBS, which is 81% owned by the taxpayer, has also announced a bonus pool of £588 million this year. I know that some of the banks claim that their overall bonus pool is coming down, but for the ordinary person in the street the figures are more than they would ever hope to win in a lottery in their wildest dreams, never mind expect to earn in the course of a year. They also find it astonishing that the banks might seek to breach the EU cap on bankers bonuses. It is difficult to understand why people who are paid in excess of £1 million, and have a range of other benefits, seek bonuses of twice their annual salary.