Cost of Living
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
I do not know whether you voted against those measures, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we appreciate any efforts to help alleviate the cost of living. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that when people fill up their tank at the petrol station, they think, “How grateful we are to the Conservatives for the cost of petrol today”? When it comes to the cost of living—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very generous so far, but he cannot give way to six people at once. Let us get our act together and try to get through the debate. There are 21 Members who want to speak, and I am sure that other Members will want to hear them.
Chris Leslie
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am still on the first page of my speech. I remind Government Members that the profits of the energy companies, which in many ways are the drivers hurting many of our constituents, have risen astronomically in recent years. Since the general election, energy company profits are up from £2 billion to £3.7 billion. Members will have read in The Independent yesterday that profits were £30 per household at the time of the general election, that they rose to £53 per household in 2012 and that they are now expected to be £105 per household this year, and yet the Government continually cower in trepidation of the big six gas and electricity corporations. They are not just recoiling from any willingness to challenge their behaviour, but in their cowardice the Government defend the status quo as though nothing can be done.
Labour says that energy bills can and should be frozen while Parliament legislates to reset the energy market to one that provides true competition, reduces scope for excessive profiteering and offers reductions for customers when wholesale prices fall.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Everybody else has sat down, but somehow the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) feels he can hang around for another five minutes. I assure him that he cannot. The Minister will give way when he wishes to, not when the hon. Gentleman demands. [Interruption.] I do not need help from others, either.
Chris Leslie
I think that shows that we have touched a nerve. We know that the best we can expect from the autumn statement—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Did somebody shout out something about cowardice? No; okay, carry on.
Chris Leslie
I did not catch what was said, but we will see what Hansard records.
We know what will be in the autumn statement next week. The best we can expect is that the Chancellor will probably transfer about £100 or so off people’s energy bill and on to their tax bill instead. That is a ruse.
Robert Halfon
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has said that his Government tried to help motorists, but he inadvertently forgot to mention that they raised fuel duty 12 times.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order. He has made that point on many occasions and I did not need reminding.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We can all make a judgment about that, but it might be helpful to remind Members that there are many speakers to come, so if we are going to have interventions they have to be short and not speeches. I will be honest with Members: anyone on my list of speakers who makes a long intervention will go down the list accordingly.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) is short in his contributions on most occasions. I note that he wanted to change the subject from energy prices. The problem is that, time after time, the Conservative party has no answers for the public, who want politicians—their elected representatives—to take action on the cost of living, particularly on energy prices. As long as the hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues let the rip-off merchants and unfair profiteers continue with business as usual, the public will take exception to the deceitful claim that we are all in it together.
Mr Ellwood
I urge the hon. Gentleman to be cautious about questioning whether this subject is being taken seriously by Government Members, because the record should note that there are more Government Members than Opposition Members present to debate this important issue. On energy, will he now concede that Labour failed to ensure that the lights will be kept on in this country by failing to invest in nuclear energy? More than six nuclear power stations have closed down. That is why energy prices have gone up—because we are not making our own energy.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I asked for short interventions. Please shorten them, Mr Ellwood, or we will not take any more from you. I am sure you will want to get another one in later.
Chris Leslie
There are only another 18 months during which there will be more Conservative Members than Labour ones in this Chamber. I hope that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) is watching the clock, because they are running out of time.
The Prime Minister has broken not only that list of promises, but more records than most Prime Ministers over the decades, and not in a good way. How has he been a record breaker? Since entering No. 10 Downing street, he has delivered a record-breaking cost of living crisis, with wages failing to keep pace with prices for an unprecedented 40 out of his 41 months in office. That is the longest period of diminishing real wage values since records began.
A record-breaking number of people now rely on food banks just to get by—it has tripled in the past year alone—with more than 350,000 families requiring food parcels in the past six months.
Alun Cairns
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has inadvertently misled the House in that the quotes attributed to me are wholly inaccurate. I ask him to withdraw what he said.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I do not know whether what was said is true or false, but the hon. Gentleman has put the facts on the record. I am sure that that point can be sorted out later, no doubt over a cup of tea.
Stephen Doughty
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise another point of order, but the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan suggested that I may have misled the House—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Let me reassure both hon. Gentlemen that I am not going to decide who is right. You have each claimed that you are right and that the other is wrong. It is on the record, and people can make up their minds tomorrow. I want to continue with this debate.
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth may have time later to elaborate on the quote. It may be incorrect, and we will see whether journalists want to look into that.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I am very pleased and somewhat flattered that he should be referring to the Free Enterprise Group on the Floor of the House. What was the size of the deficit when his party left government in 2010? What was the absolute size of the deficit and what was the proportion of the deficit—
Chris Leslie
The national debt was about £800 million. The national debt—[Hon. Members: “The deficit.”] I know what the hon. Gentleman said. I could hear what he said. I am giving him the figures. The national debt—[Interruption.] It seems that Government Members do not want to talk about the national debt. The national debt was about £800 million. It is now £1.2 trillion. As Brucie might say, “Higher, higher!”
Mr Deputy Speaker
It had better be a point of order, Mr Newmark, if you want to get in early. I do not want to have to put you near the bottom, because I know that this matter is important to you.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I was not taking a point of clarification, but a point of order.
Mr Newmark
It is a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) was asked a question about the deficit. Unfortunately, his answer was about debt. Rather like Rev. Paul Flowers, he does not know basic economics. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I will let that go. It is up to the shadow Minister how he wishes to answer the question. It is not for you, Mr Newmark, to waste the House’s time on an irrelevant—[Interruption.] Order. On an irrelevant point of order. If you do not mind, we will have no more.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. You also want to speak, Mr Davies. You are constantly on your feet. I want to hear Mr Leslie. I also want to hear what the Government have to say. I will not hear either of them with the amount of time we have taken so far.
Chris Leslie
That is a good point, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will be brief in talking about the hon. Member for Spelthorne and the Free Enterprise Group. The Free Enterprise Group published plans to slap a 15% increase on essentials such as food and children’s clothes through VAT and to triple the tax on heating bills. A number of hon. Members who are in the Chamber today are members of the Free Enterprise Group. They might be shuffling away from the hon. Member for Spelthorne now.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend realise that the reason why some of us worry about the proposals of the Free Enterprise Group is that they are all of a piece with what the Tories have done already, including a drop of £35 a week in real wages in my constituency, the imposition of the bedroom tax on the poorest people and, contrary to what they say, increases in council tax for the poorest people? The reason Tory Back Benchers worry about being seen as the party of the rich is that they are the party of the rich.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I am concerned because the debate has been going for 36 minutes already. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches is due to be five minutes. I do not want it to go below that. At this rate, a lot of Members will drop off the list.
Chris Leslie
I want to draw my remarks to a close, so I will not take any more interventions.
In a moment, my hon. Friends will be subjected to the Minister claiming that the Government alone are responsible for the long overdue return of economic growth. What he cannot grasp is that growth is appearing despite his policies, not because of them. As the Nobel prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman, said of the Government’s attitude just the other day,
“It’s like hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat for years. Then, you stop hitting yourself with the baseball bat and say, ‘See? I feel much better now—hitting myself with a baseball bat was clearly the right thing to do’.”
That sums up their view perfectly. They do not understand that only the return of strong economic growth will tackle the deficit in any meaningful way. Three years on, they still have not cottoned on.
The reason we have a cost of living crisis is that the historic connection between economic growth and household wealth has been severed. Even though it looks like we are finally seeing some growth in some parts of the economy, that growth is not being shared fairly. Indeed, GDP per capita remains flat. I pay tribute to the companies and households that have managed to keep it together despite the Chancellor’s inaction. What we need now is help for those who are trying to do their best—the people who never complain, who never say that they should be at the front of the queue, who go to work and who manage as best they can. Those people need real help with their energy bills and child care costs. They need us to tackle low pay and to freeze business rates for small firms.
The challenge for the autumn statement is to take action now on the cost of living, not to use sleight of hand to pile more burdens on the taxpayer. We need long-term reforms that ensure that there is a balanced recovery that is built to last, not short-term, knee-jerk flip-flopping. We need fairness for the many, not tax cuts for the few. The Government are out of touch with the mood of the public—the wealthy elite are looking after the wealthy elite and are all in it together. They are timid in the face of excessive profiteering from big energy companies, while the rest get broken promises on the economy and the deficit from a Government who are lurching to the right and reverting to type. The British people cannot afford this Government any longer. Britain deserves better.
Helen Jones
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I note that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is not present. Can you investigate whether that is because the Lib Dem part of the coalition no longer takes responsibility for economic policy?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
As the hon. Lady well knows, that is not a point of order. It is certainly not a matter for the Chair and does not want to be. I call the Financial Secretary.
Sajid Javid
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller).
Sajid Javid
I will give way to my hon. Friends in a moment. The Opposition spokesman talked about breaking records, so let us take a quick look at Labour’s record breakers—they are enough to make Roy Castle jump up and down with excitement. Labour gave this country the deepest recession in living memory, and the biggest budget deficit in our post-war history, and the largest in the G20. To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), Labour was borrowing almost £160 billion—£300,000 a minute, or £5,000 every second. Labour gave this country the largest bail-out the world has ever seen. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I find it strange that I cannot hear the Financial Secretary because Government Members are making so much noise. I would have thought they ought to listen to him, just as I wish to hear him.
Sajid Javid
I think the House missed hearing about another record breaker that Labour gave this country, which was the largest bank bail-out the world has ever seen. That is Labour’s legacy, and if the Opposition spokesman wants to apologise, he is welcome to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Lady has made her intervention. She cannot keep going.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady needs to check her figures. She will see that, as I have said, the sharpest rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio took place during the last 10 years of the Labour Government.
Living Standards
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
The fact that we have credibility in our fiscal policy means that the Governor of the Bank of England has been able to say what he has said about the greater certainty for interest rates, which is helpful for businesses. If we throw away that fiscal credibility, we will make life more difficult for businesses wanting to get credit.
We have talked about what the motion contains. It says that we should get more people into work: we agree with that. Over the year, employment has increased by 301,000, and unemployment has fallen by 49,000. In July, the claimant count fell, for the ninth consecutive month, to 1.44 million, the lowest level since February 2009. This is the result of a Government who have created the right tax and regulatory environment for businesses to flourish. The proposals from the Opposition would put all of that at risk.
We hear about bringing forward capital investment. We also recognise the need for infrastructure investment to spur the jobs and growth of the future, and that is why in June the Chief Secretary unveiled the biggest public housing programme for more than 20 years; the largest programme of rail investment since Victorian times; the greatest investment in our roads since the 1970s; fast online access for the whole country; and the unlocking of massive investment in cleaner energy to power our economy forward. We have increased expertise in Whitehall and we are working hard to deliver those projects as soon as possible.
The cost of living is an important issue, and we recognise that times are tough for many people. But let us look at the difference between the parties. Whereas we have reduced income tax for 25 million people—we have increased the personal allowance—the previous Government doubled the rate of income tax on low-paid workers. This Government have ensured that we have credibility so that we have been able to keep mortgage rates low: the Opposition would lose our credibility. Council tax doubled under the previous Government: it has been frozen under us.
The previous Government raised fuel duty 12 times while in office and had plans to raise it six more times subsequently—the equivalent of 13p per litre—and we have frozen fuel duty. When we came to office, the UK had almost the highest child care costs in the world, and we will help families with child care. Energy bills soared under Labour. Between 1997 and 2010, the average domestic gas bill more than doubled. Electricity bills went up by more than 50% and Labour remains committed to an expensive 2030 decarbonisation target that will only add to energy bills, whereas this Government are forcing energy companies to put customers on the lowest tariff. When it comes to beer duty, Labour planned to raise the tax: we not only froze it, we cut it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), in an excellent speech, asked how we ensure that we have the sustainable growth that we need. We need sustainable public finances—an argument that we have made consistently and that has been consistently opposed by the Opposition. We need a highly skilled work force, and that is why 500,000 apprenticeships have been undertaken under this Government. It is why we are undertaking ambitious educational reform. We need welfare reform, with a system that makes sure that work is rewarded—not something that we inherited from Labour. We need a competitive tax system that encourages investment in the United Kingdom, not one that drives it away. We need to deal with the regulatory burdens that prevent growth—we have undertaken planning reform, which will help to increase housing supply.
What do we get from the Opposition? We get a Labour party that presided over a squeeze in living standards from 2003; a Labour party that must accept some responsibility for the deepest recession in a century; a Labour party that doubled the rate of income tax on low-paid workers; a Labour party that planned for increase after increase in fuel duty; a Labour party that remains signed up to decarbonisation targets that would increase energy prices; a Labour party that has consistently set out an economic policy that would consist of more borrowing, an approach that would lead to higher mortgage rates and ultimately higher taxes; and a Labour party that has opposed our council tax freeze. For Opposition Members to lecture us on living standards is extraordinary. As President Obama might have said, it is the audacity of the hopeless.
If we want to help hard-working people—I think we all do—it is vital that we stick to the task. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There are too many private conversations. I am struggling to hear the Minister.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the light of the fact that the International Monetary Fund has upgraded the United Kingdom’s projection for growth, and that the European zone’s projection has been downgraded, I wonder whether you have been given any indication whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a statement, as I, for one, would like to congratulate him.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
On the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I think that he has already achieved what he wants. The answer to the first part of his question is no.
Third Reading
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
After the global banking crash, my constituents in Northumberland wanted to see better banking, higher standards, fewer scandals, greater competition and a greater degree of choice and service. In the past three years, this Government have been on a slow but continual journey to reinvigorate British banking and clear up the mess that we inherited.
I believe that over the next couple of years smaller regional banks will spring up throughout this great country, and I want briefly to address the House on that matter. Paragraph 49 of the banking commission’s main summary gives an excellent summation of its views on competition in retail banking. I refer anybody interested in this to the grave and weighty paragraphs 313 to 343 of the larger volume, where they will see, in particular, the evidence of Anthony Thomson, the co-founder of Metro Bank, with whom I have worked at great length over the past two years to try to reinvigorate the regional banking market.
That culminated in a series of efforts that have been made with the various regulatory authorities, starting with meetings that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and I had in February 2012 with Mr Hector Sants, the then chief executive of the Financial Services Authority. Mr Sants followed that up by writing on 12 March 2012:
“We are conscious of the balance to be struck between ensuring high standards at the gateway, and the importance of allowing innovation and appropriate levels of access for new firms…there has been public debate about the potential advantages of new entrants in the area of small, regional banks focused on servicing the SME sector. In such cases we will be proportionate in our approach and would invite all firms with a viable business model and appropriate levels of resources to a pre-application meeting to help guide them through the application process”.
Those were wise words and a significant step by the then chief exec of the FSA.
Then came the Bill that became the Financial Services Act 2012, which, I am pleased to say, passed its Second Reading in this House on 23 April 2012. To my surprise, the Labour party voted against clause 5, which specifically emphasised
“the ease with which new entrants can enter the market, and…how far competition is encouraging innovation.”
Be that as it may, the banking commission and other parties hugely improved the approach to regional banking. I support the efforts of everyone involved and echo the words of the Minister and the shadow Minister.
Following a huge amount of effort outside this House to encourage regional banking, Mr Thomson and I held a conference in Gateshead on 7 June that was attended by 142 delegates, including the Minister. More important, however—this is of key relevance to the banking commission’s findings—Sam Woods, the director of the domestic UK banks division at the Prudential Regulation Authority, and Victoria Raffe, the director of authorisations at the Financial Conduct Authority, were also in attendance on that day. Those two people are in effect the gatekeepers of regional banking and of the authorisations and regulation that lie ahead. They were welcome and made the case that regional banks are the way ahead.
I for one expect at least three or four banks to spring up in the north-east over the next 12 to 18 months, ranging from asset-backed lenders such as Cambridge & Counties bank—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is going to draw his speech into the Third Reading, because this is the Third Reading debate. The two must come together and it would be helpful if that happened sooner rather than later.
Guy Opperman
I will totally draw it into Third Reading, Mr Deputy Speaker. Those particular persons are very much affected and are working hand in glove with the Bill, which I support wholeheartedly.
John Mann
I sit on the Treasury Select Committee; the hon. Gentleman served on it, so we have a modicum more information on these matters, as do other hon. Members, than our constituents. Nothing has changed for them, however. Fundamentally, there has been no segmentation of the market, which is why the new challenger banks are getting no further. Only a tiny, tiny proportion of business is going to them. We have not restructured, even though in RBS and Lloyds TSB we have the perfect opportunity, owing to the crisis, to restructure. Across the world, we see vast numbers of people suffering and Governments of every political persuasion being voted out because of the financial crisis and the decisions they have made. This Government might face the same dilemma. I am not commenting on whether the decisions on the deficit and debt are right or wrong economically, politically or socially—that is a critical debate, but it is a different debate—but the fact that we are in this situation and we are not addressing it for the future in anything but the most micro-management way is part of that weakness.
The Government might want to give themselves plaudits and say, “Well, perhaps we’re doing a little better than the Government of Greece or Spain,” or whichever Government it is. The Americans can slap themselves on the back and say, “Unlike the Brits, we’ve got our act together. We’ve targeted their banks. We’ve portrayed them as the wrongdoers. We’ve managed to shift some of the powers to ourselves,” which is precisely what is going on among the political, banking and business classes in Washington and New York. They are winning that battle.
I will end on this point. This is a world crisis. My research document proves that every one of the top 50 banks in the world, without exception, have been involved in criminality in recent times. That is staggering for any industry. For us to hold that industry together with sticking tape, not even with the most damaged and shattered elements, including those that have had to be nationalised, such as Lloyds TSB—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Mann, your time is up—that is the story of your life at the moment.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Professional standards—
‘After section 65 of FSMA 2000 insert—
“65A Professional Standards
(1) The regulator will raise standards of professionalism in financial services by mandating a licensing regime based on training and competence. This must—
(a) apply to all approved persons exercising controlled functions, regardless of financial sector;
(b) specify minimum thresholds of competence including integrity, professional qualifications, continuous professional development and adherence to a recognised code of conduct and revised Banking Standards Rules;
(c) make provisions in connection with—
(i) the granting of a licence;
(ii) the refusal of a licence;
(iii) the withdrawal of a licence; and
(iv) the revalidation of a licensed person of a prescribed description whenever the appropriate regulator sees fit, either as a condition of the person continuing to hold a licence or of the person’s licence being restored;
(d) be evidenced by individuals holding an annual validation of competence;
(e) include specific provision for a Senior Persons Regime in relation to activities involving the exercise of a significant influence over a controlled function under section 59 of the Act.
(2) In section 59, remove “authorised” and insert “licensed” throughout the section.”.’.
New clause 4—Duty of Care—
‘At all times when carrying out core activities a ring-fenced body shall—
(a) be subject to a fiduciary duty towards its customers in the operation of core services; and
(b) be subject to a duty of care towards it customers across the financial services sector.’.
New clause 5—Remuneration reform—
‘Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, in consultation with the appropriate regulation, lay before Parliament proposals on reform of remuneration at UK financial institutions which shall include incentives to take account of the performance and stability of a UK financial institution over a five- to 10-year period.’.
New clause 7—Protection for whistleblowers—
‘(1) After section 43B(f) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 there is inserted—
“(g) that a breach of regulated activities under FSMA 2000 or the Financial Services Act 2012 has been committed, is being committed, or is likely to be committed.”.
(2) After section 43B(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 there is inserted—
“The chairman of the board of directors of any relevant UK financial institution will be informed of any protected disclosure made by a worker which qualifies under the terms of Part IVA of this Act.”.’.
New clause 11—Reckless misconduct in the management of a bank—
‘(1) Within the three months of Royal Assent of this Act the Government shall publish proposals for the creation of a new criminal offence of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank.
(2) The new offence in subsection (2) should cover those approved persons who are licensed under a Senior Persons Regime.
(3) The Government shall bring forward further proposals within three months of Royal Assent of this Act for the civil recovery of monies obtained by individuals who have been found guilty of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank.’.
New clause 13—Financial Services Crime Unit—
‘(1) The Treasury shall conduct a review into the creation of a Financial Services Crime Unit and consult on its proposals for the Financial Services Crime Unit’s powers and responsibilities.
(2) The Treasury shall lay its proposals before both Houses of Parliament no later than six months after this Act comes into force.’.
Stephen Barclay
In speaking to new clause 2, which I will not press to a vote, I wish to follow the line of argument pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) on new clause 9. He drew attention to the tension created by building up capital while also lending more and used the analogy of driving with one foot on the accelerator and the other on the brake. If I may, I will take a step outside the car. With new clause 2, I wish to draw the House’s attention to a similar, I am sure unintended tension. The Government are taking a positive step forward, because in paragraphs 2.13 and 2.14 of their response to the parliamentary commission’s report, they make the welcome announcement that they accept the premise of reversing the burden of proof. In doing so, however, they will adopt a measure suggested in paragraphs 1170 and 1171 of the commission’s report that will create a potential handicap. A new condition will be attached to using that burden of proof, whereby the regulator must have concluded a successful enforcement action against the firm prior to doing so.
I do not think there can be any doubt about the merits of reversing the burden of proof. It is clear that if the regulator is required to sift through reams of e-mails looking for evidence to incriminate a senior banker, it will be a time-consuming and costly exercise. It is also highly likely that it will fail, because senior executives are not so stupid as to write boastful and wilful e-mails such as we saw from some of the LIBOR traders, who bragged of having their bottles of Bolly. Most senior executives are wise to the risks of e-mails and would not fall into such a trap. It is proportionate and reasonable to argue that senior executives who say that their hands-on leadership is sufficient to justify very high individual bonuses should also, on the other side of the coin, be able to demonstrate that they have personally acted reasonably.
The Government’s announcement that they will reverse the burden of proof is extremely welcome. However, the acceptance of paragraph 1171 of the Commission’s report could lead to a real impediment. If we open the door to personal enforcement, why would a chief executive wish to settle on behalf of their firm? We are trying to make it easier for the regulator to focus in a time-efficient and cost-effective manner on the individuals who should be held responsible, but that will be impeded by the additional requirement for enforcement to be concluded against the firm. The senior leadership whom we want to target will be incentivised to drag out proceedings and impede any settlement with the firm. I do not believe that is the Government’s intention, but I wished to draw the Minister’s attention to it so that the issue could be discussed in more detail and tackled in the other place.
I do not share the confidence of some colleagues who have spoken about the ability of criminal sanctions to operate effectively. They are a welcome tool to have, and many of our constituents would like the golden handcuffs to be replaced with the prison variety. Indeed, the images on US television of white-collar arrests and convictions have a powerful deterrent effect. My concern, however, is that if we look at the individual fines and enforcement to date, we see that the regulator has struggled to reach the evidential level required to prosecute individuals successfully. Now we are suggesting that it will have to meet a higher standard of proof to secure criminal convictions. It is a bit like asking a hurdler who has just failed at one level to jump over a much higher hurdle.
The reversal of the burden of proof is one aspect of what we need, and the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions is another, because it brings with it the power of the headline. The question is, will we fall into the trap that we so often fall into in this House of passing legislation that sounds tough but proves difficult to use in practice? My fear is that the standard of proof required of the regulator to deliver a criminal prosecution will make it a tool that is rarely used.
We therefore need to consider how we can target individuals, not firms, because that will drive the culture of firms. Currently, where there is wrongdoing, a firm will settle quickly and get a 30% discount. The more junior staff—the heads of the divisions responsible—are quickly exited, and the senior staff wilfully claim blindness, because the most controversial briefings are usually done orally. Reversing the burden of proof will address part of the ill, but through the new clause I wish to draw attention to the limitations of fines on firms, which at the end of the day penalise shareholders and pension funds. Our constituents pay twice—first for the bail-out, and then through the impact on their shareholding.
Margaret Thatcher Day Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it would be helpful to the Government Whips if they were to read “Erskine May” to see how the process works.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order, but it might have been helpful if they had struggled a little longer to get through the Lobby.
Mr Bone
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill would amend the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 so that the last Monday in August is known as Margaret Thatcher day. Baroness Thatcher was without doubt one of the greatest Prime Ministers in living memory—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Would Members please be quiet, because I am trying to hear Mr Bone. It would be helpful if those leaving the Chamber would do so quietly.
Mr Bone
Mrs Thatcher was a great stateswoman, a true patriot, and an inspiration to the masses. She not only did our country a great service but gave Britain back its pride and returned it to prosperity after some of the darkest economic days in recent decades. She gave us a legacy to be proud of. It is rare to find—
Mr Deputy Speaker
This had better be a serious point of order, Mr Docherty, because we are interrupting the hon. Gentleman’s speech for the third time. Are you serious or are you not?
Finance Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive account of new clause 7 and for responding to our queries. As he has said, the Government want to introduce a number of new clauses and amendments to the Bill. Could you clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether we are dealing with just new clause 7 at this stage, or are we taking any other amendments?
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Is it appropriate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I now speak to amendments 52 and 53, tabled in my name?
Mr Deputy Speaker
No.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 7 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 175
Election to be treated as domiciled in the United Kingdom
Mr Gauke
I beg to move amendment 1, page 105, leave out lines 4 to 13 and insert—
‘(3) Condition A is that, at any time on or after 6 April 2013 and during the period of 7 years ending with the date on which the election is made, the person had a spouse or civil partner who was domiciled in the United Kingdom.
(4) Condition B is that a person (“the deceased”) dies and, at any time on or after 6 April 2013 and within the period of 7 years ending with the date of death, the deceased was—
(a) domiciled in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the spouse or civil partner of the person who would, by virtue of the election, be treated as domiciled in the United Kingdom.’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 7 and 35 to 51.
Mr Gauke
These Government amendments make important changes to the UK’s inheritance tax rules.
Amendments 1 to 7 will bring in greater flexibility and provide more individuals with the option to elect to be treated as UK domiciled for the purposes of inheritance tax. They demonstrate the Government’s willingness to listen to the views of external interested parties and act where there is a principled case for change.
Amendments 35 to 51 are being made as a result of comments by interested parties. They clarify the technical interpretation of the legislation and change the commencement provisions with respect to certain liabilities.
Let me turn first to amendments 1 to 7 to clause 175. The clause reforms the inheritance tax treatment of transfers between UK-domiciled individuals and their non-UK-domiciled spouses or civil partners. The changes allow individuals who are not domiciled in the United Kingdom but who have a UK-domiciled spouse or civil partner to elect to be treated as domiciled in the UK for the purposes of inheritance tax.
The amendments are being made following comments from two key interested parties—the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the London Society of Chartered Accountants—about how the Finance Bill as drafted amends the inheritance tax treatment of spouses and civil partners not domiciled in the UK. Their further representations since the publication of the Bill in March have helped us understand the concerns raised in more detail. Considering the points raised has taken time, but the amendments will resolve these issues.
The clause as drafted stipulates that a person must be non-UK-domiciled and married at the time they make an election. Consequently, a person who has recently become UK domiciled would not be able to make a retrospective election that would cover a period when he or she had been non-domiciled. Effectively, they are trapped if they are not aware of the possible IHT consequences at the point just before they become UK domiciled—for example, if they decide to remain in the UK indefinitely after having children here. This might be especially harsh in situations where the original UK-domiciled spouse dies suddenly having made potentially exempt transfers to the surviving spouse.
Similarly, the Bill as drafted requires a person to remain married to, or in a civil partnership with, the UK-domiciled spouse or civil partner throughout the “relevant period” preceding the election, which can be up to seven years. Therefore, in circumstances where the marriage or civil partnership has been dissolved and the person is a non-domiciled individual, they are prevented from making an election retrospectively and hence prevented from gaining access to spousal relief for the period when they were married in return for their overseas assets being brought into IHT. That was not the intention of the policy.
Amendments 1 to 7 remove the condition that a person must be non-UK-domiciled at the time of making an election. They also remove the requirement that the person making the election is married or in a civil partnership with the UK-domiciled individual throughout the relevant period. The amended clause stipulates instead that they were married or in civil partnership at any time during the relevant period.
As a result of these amendments, individuals who are domiciled in the UK but who were previously domiciled elsewhere will be able to make a retrospective election. Similarly, the amendments will also enable individuals previously married or in a civil partnership to make a retrospective election following divorce or dissolution. This will ensure that changes in domicile or marriage status do not restrict the ability of individuals to elect to be within the UK inheritance tax system.
Amendment 1 simply removes a sub-paragraph that is no longer required as a consequence of amendments 2 to 6, while amendment 7 provides clarity that the provision for revoking an election applies only to the person who made the election and not to that person’s personal representatives.
Let me now turn to amendments 35 to 51 to schedule 34. Clause 174 and schedule 34 reform the inheritance tax treatment of outstanding liabilities. They introduce new conditions and restrictions on when a liability can be deducted from the value of an estate.
The current rules allow almost all outstanding liabilities at death to reduce the value of an estate, irrespective of how the borrowed moneys have been used, or whether the loan is repaid following the death. That creates opportunities for avoidance and can lead to decisions and arrangements being made purely for tax reasons. A range of contrived arrangements and avoidance schemes on the market seek to exploit the current rules. The number of those is expected to grow as other avoidance routes are closed off.
There is an inconsistency in how the current rules treat liabilities that are used to acquire assets that qualify for relief, but that are secured against different types of assets. That creates an advantageous tax position and distorts decision making by encouraging individuals to secure business loans against their personal property where there may be no need to do so. The Government believe that the tax system should neither encourage nor penalise the choice of one form of security over another.
Clause 174 and schedule 34 address those opportunities for avoidance and inconsistency in three ways. First, deductions will be disallowed where the loan has been used to acquire excluded property—that is, property which is excluded from the charge to inheritance tax. Secondly, where the loan has been used to acquire relievable property—that is, property which qualifies for a relief—the relief will be allowed against the net value of the property after deducting the loan. Thirdly, the loan will generally be allowable as a deduction only if it has been repaid from assets in the estate.
The Government are making those changes to improve the integrity and fairness of the inheritance tax system, close avoidance opportunities and remove the inconsistency in the treatment of loans.
Following the publication of the Finance Bill in March, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has received comments from representative bodies, practitioners and individuals that have highlighted sections of the legislation that could be clarified. Interested parties have also expressed concern that the new provisions will apply retrospectively where individuals have secured business loans on their non-business property for commercial reasons, rather than for avoidance purposes, before the changes were announced. Those individuals would face a higher IHT bill if they died before the debt was repaid.
Amendments 35 to 49 clarify the interpretation of the legislation to ensure that it works as intended, and address some of the technical issues identified in feedback. If a loan has been used to acquire excluded property, which later becomes chargeable to IHT, amendment 37 will allow the deduction for the liability. Conversely, if chargeable property subsequently becomes excluded property, the amendment will deny the deduction.
Where a loan has been used to acquire relievable property and that property is given away before death, amendments 41 and 42 will ensure that the liability is not deducted again against other types of property if it has already been taken into account. Amendment 45 will widen the meaning of “estate” to allow the liability to be repaid from property that is usually treated as being outside a person’s estate for IHT purposes, such as foreign property that is owned by an individual who is not domiciled in the UK. Where a loan has not been repaid and the deduction is disallowed, amendment 47 will make it clear that the liability will not reduce the amount that would be eligible for the inheritance tax exemption for transfers between spouses or civil partners.
The Government recognise that some lenders may require security in the form of personal assets and that individuals who have secured existing loans against their personal property to finance business investment may not be able to restructure the loan or unwind the arrangements. Amendments 50 and 51 will therefore amend the commencement date so that the new rules dealing with liabilities incurred to acquire relievable property will apply only to new loans taken out on or after 6 April 2013. That will mean that someone who took out a business loan in the past secured against their other assets will not be affected by the new provisions.
The commencement date for the other provisions in schedule 34 will remain unchanged as the date of Royal Assent. Those provisions will apply to other liabilities, irrespective of when they were incurred.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are wandering away from the amendment, and I know the hon. Lady just wanted to make a point on the amendment.
Catherine McKinnell
My point relates specifically to the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Many businesses that manage to obtain funding are often required to provide their home as security. If this provision has a detrimental impact on small businesses and puts family homes in jeopardy, will the Government keep it under review?
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 9 to 16.
Mr Gauke
Clause 14 and schedule 2 provide a wide-ranging simplification of the four tax advantaged employee share schemes, following recommendations by the Office of Tax Simplification. The Government are introducing amendments 8 to 16 to provide further clarity on the rules that apply where company events involving “general offers” take place. When clause 14 was discussed in Committee, we highlighted some of the improvements that we are making to simplify the tax advantaged employee share schemes, and I shall provide hon. Members with some background on the specific provisions relating to these amendments.
Current legislation allows employees affected by certain company events, such as takeovers, to exchange their original scheme shares or options for shares or options in the acquiring company. The schedule also creates new rights for participants to realise scheme shares or exercise options without tax liability in the event of a cash takeover of their company.
Earlier this year, a tax tribunal hearing a particular case published a decision on what constitutes a “general offer” for the whole of the ordinary share capital of a company. Following this decision, and a number of requests from taxpayers and advisers, the Government consider it desirable to clarify the scope of what constitutes a “general offer” for the purposes of the provisions. The amendments clarify the position across all four tax advantaged employee share schemes, and confirm the rules as they have been consistently applied by HMRC. Our aim is to remove any uncertainty for advisers and taxpayers, consistent with the general simplification theme of the changes. The amendments, alongside the changes that already form part of the Bill, demonstrate the Government’s commitment to simplifying and clarifying the tax rules where possible.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move amendment 17, page 205, line 7, after ‘(g)’, insert ‘or (4A)’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 18 to 29.
Amendment 52, page 213, line 2, at end insert—
‘(aa) the policy has an annual premium of £3,600 or less.’.
Amendment 53, page 213, line 2, at end insert—
‘(ab) the policy is subject to capital gains tax.’.
Sajid Javid
Amendments 17 to 29 make a number of technical changes to schedule 9 and clause 25 to ensure that the qualifying insurance policy regime works as intended. Let me set out some brief background to these changes. The qualifying policy regime was introduced in 1968 to preserve pre-existing tax treatment for traditional moderate value, long-term, regular premium savings policies that contain a significant element of life insurance.
No upper limit was set for the investment premiums that could be paid into a QP, which allowed individuals to obtain unlimited relief from higher rates of income tax. In the 2012 Budget, the Government announced a restriction to the tax relief available for QPs. Clause 25 and schedule 9 introduce an annual premium limit of £3,600 on qualifying life insurance policies. This restriction limits the amount of premiums payable into QPs for an individual to no more than £3,600 in any 12-month period, with effect from 6 April 2013.
This measure supports the Government’s objective of promoting fairness in the tax system by ensuring that tax reliefs for QPs are correctly targeted. Consultation since the Bill was introduced has continued and identified the need for Government amendments to clause 25 to deal with points of detail in 13 areas. None of these represents a change of policy; as I have said, they are technical adjustments to ensure that the rules operate effectively and as intended. The amendments have been discussed with industry representatives and have benefited from the comments received.
Let me briefly explain the amendments in slightly more detail. The purpose of the changes is to provide flexibility to deal with potential future exclusions from the non-assignment rule and potential future exclusions from the circumstances under which beneficiaries must make statements, to extend the period by which an individual must first make a statement and to clarify what information an insurer must provide and obtain from a policy beneficiary and what an insurer must provide to HMRC. In addition, a number of amendments make minor corrections or consequential changes to the more material changes that I have described.
If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak to amendments 52 and 53, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), at the end of the debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I do not think that we need to worry about that. We should stick to the amendment.
Cathy Jamieson
Thank you for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had feared that the Exchequer Secretary would jump up and ask a supplementary question about the Opposition’s position on cutting VAT.
Jack Dromey
There was an office block speculator called Harry Hyams. Those were the days when people could build office blocks and not pay rent on them, and they would appreciate two or three times in value every year. That happened against the background of a chronic housing crisis. We rightly protested against that and the incoming Labour Government rightly changed the law for—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are trying to deal with an amendment. Going down memory lane is all very well, Centre Point is very interesting and Mr Mann will always have a response, but I know that Members are desperate to get back to the amendment.
Jack Dromey
You are right, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We are here to stand up for the people we represent, and we all see the impact of the housing crisis in our constituencies. I see the impact in the shortage of homes being built in Erdington—56 certified by the National House-Building Council in 2012—and the building worker, one of 79,000, who lost his job, a big man who burst into tears on his front doorstep in Marsh lane and said, “I’ve lost my job three times; I am desperate to provide for my family. I simply can’t cope any longer.” I also see the impact on the homeless families who come to my surgery—on one occasion, they had just been evicted—desperate for a decent home, and the young people in the Orchard project run by the YMCA in my constituency, where numbers of young homeless people double every year.
Finance Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans
When Conservative Members were talking about the Laffer curve, Ronald Reagan came to mind. For some reason, when the hon. Gentleman stood up, Ronald Reagan came to mind again, as I recalled him saying to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election campaign, “There you go again.” The person sitting tonight at their kitchen table, worrying about paying the rent, the mortgage, the gas bill or the electric bill, and watching this debate—although given the time they will probably be watching “Pointless”—[Interruption.] I walked into that one. They might be watching ITV instead—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think that is enough about television shows.
Chris Evans
I was just wondering what the man at the kitchen table was watching. I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. All we hear is the same old debate and the same charge that it is all the Labour Government’s fault, so let me challenge the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller).
Geraint Davies
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s enormous generosity in giving way again. Is she aware—I am sure she is—that property prices in London have grown so much that some local authorities have greater asset value than the entirety of Wales? Therefore, the mansion tax is a sort of cap—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Davies, you were right when you said that you have intervened a lot. I do not mind you intervening but please do not take up so much time that you are almost making a speech.
Sheila Gilmore
I was not aware of the figure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) refers, but if that is the case, it is a fascinating reflection on the huge differences between different parts of the country. If we do not do something about that soon, we will regret it in the near future.
Labour Members are constantly berated about the fact that we—the previous Government—abolished the 10p tax rate. At the same time, the current Government do not seem that keen on reintroducing it. We are accused of changing our mind, but it now appears that the Government are changing theirs. When the 10p tax rate was abolished, they attempted to make great political capital out of the issue—fair enough; that is what politics is about—and they have done so since by saying that it was a bad thing for us to have done and should not have happened. Now we are talking about reintroducing a 10p tax rate, and suddenly that is a bad thing to do. For people in low-paid employment—of whom there are many—there are advantages in having a more graduated taxation system that enables them to build up disposable income as they go. As we know, disposable income has fallen for many households in this country, which is a serious matter.
Looking specifically at the new clause, I hope it is not unreasonable to suggest that we consider and study such a measure. It perhaps prompts the question of why the Government are so against it, because if they are sure that a study would show that it would not be practicable or successful, there is nothing much to lose. From what the Minister said during an intervention, it sounds as if the Government may have already done some work on the provision, and on that basis, it should not be so difficult. People in the country want to see whether the measure could be a feasible means of ensuring that those who have asset wealth pay their fair share.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady must be getting to the point at which she links her remarks with the new clause. I am struggling to see the link at the moment.
Sheila Gilmore
The link is that some would argue that a mansion tax would be oppressive on people who may live in a house that is valued at more than £2 million, but have a very low income, and they should not be expected to find that payment. As has been suggested to my constituent and others, such people may wish to consider taking in a lodger, releasing some of their equity or downsizing. I suspect that downsizing with that type of property would be easy. I would hope, therefore, that such arguments would not be made against a mansion tax. I hope that the Government will support the new clause, because if their arguments are as strong as they say, they will be able to disprove our case very quickly.
Chris Evans
I, too, hope to see them in the Lobby, but I am sure that they will not be there. That is the wonderful thing about the Liberal Democrats: it is the only party that can support something—have the bare-faced cheek to stand up in favour of something—and then vote for the exact opposite in the Division Lobby. That is what the Liberal Democrats should remember: in the marginal seats that they need to hold on to, they will be judged on their priorities—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Eastleigh want me to give way to him, or is he happy to listen? [Interruption.] Indeed, we do not usually hear from a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrats will be judged on their priorities, and their priorities have not been what they said they would be. They are not for the students; they are not for the elderly; they are not for the poorest paid in society: they are simply there to prop up this coalition Government. They are becoming nothing but voting fodder for this Tory Administration. I notice that the Tory Members were nodding when I said that. If any further proof were required about who is in the senior part of—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Evans, I gave you a little leniency on the earlier new clause, but on this one, we have got so far off the mark that I do not know how to drag you back. I am worried about the time ticking away, and it would be better for the House if you spoke to the new clause. I am sure that that is exactly what you are going to do next.
Chris Evans
I have the Bill in my hand, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am going to come to the relevant clause.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Having the clause in the hon. Gentleman’s hand is not necessarily helpful; it is what he says that matters more.
Chris Evans
I was just coming on to that point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I just needed time.
Chris Evans
I ask anybody who says that this mansion tax cannot be introduced to read clause 92, which relates to the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. Under the heading of “Charge to tax”, it states:
“A tax (called ‘annual tax on enveloped dwellings’) is to be charged in accordance with this Part…Tax charged in respect of the chargeable interest if on one or more days in a chargeable period…the interest is a single-dwelling interest and has a taxable value of more than £2 million, and…a company, partnership or collective investment scheme meets the ownership condition with respect to the interest.”
That seems very much like a mansion tax to me. Clause 97 goes on to state:
“The amount of tax charged for a chargeable period with respect to a single-dwelling interest is stated in subsection (2) or (3).”
A table then sets out the annual chargeable amounts, highlighting the taxable value of the interest on the relevant day. It shows that if the property is worth more than £2 million but not more than £5 million, it would raise £15,000; if it is worth more than £5 million but not more than £10 million, it would raise £35,000; if it is worth more than £10 million but not more than £20 million, it would raise £70,000; and if it is worth more than £20 million, it would bring in a whopping great £140,000. If that is not a step towards a mansion tax, I do not know what it is. But still—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I can cope a little bit with this speech. The Liberals may well want to hear the hon. Gentleman, but he has to address the Chair. Constantly looking at the Liberal is not helpful for Mr Thornton, but it would be helpful for Mr Evans if he were looking at the Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the rest of his speech will be conducted through this Chair, rather than through the Opposition chair—much as Mr Leslie would provide him with advice, he really should speak to this Chair.
Chris Evans
I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Much as I think the Liberal Democrats believe that the world revolves around them—[Interruption.]
Multinational Companies and UK Corporation Tax
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind Members that there is a four-minute limit on speeches.
Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing the debate and on his contribution, with which I totally agree, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on supporting him.
The vexed question of multinational companies and their failure to pay a fair share of corporation tax on the profits they secure from the activities they undertake in this country has struck an incredibly powerful chord with the British public. If we take the Amazon example, we find that in 2012 it had sales of £4 billion in the UK, yet it paid only £2.4 million in corporation tax, and then took £2.5 million in grants from the UK Government. That is simply unacceptable.
In this climate, people are finding it tough to manage their daily income, there are public expenditure cuts and small businesses feel hounded by HMRC, so I can well understand why there is huge anger at the behaviour of multinational companies that seek so aggressively to avoid paying their tax. I am particularly cross about the argument, which so many of them put forward, that because they pay other taxes they can decide voluntarily whether to pay corporation tax. We all pay our council tax, VAT and income tax; they pay business rates and employer contributions, and should also pay their corporation tax.
I know the Minister is concerned that if we tread too heavily on companies they may seek to relocate elsewhere, but I draw to his attention the remarks of Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, who said that whatever we decide to do, his company would remain here, because this is too important a market for it not to do so. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that feelings are so strong on this issue that we should not, in an attempt to keep multinational corporations here, allow them to blackmail us. Such corporations will stay because of the market: they come here because we are outside the euro and have a strong financial services sector, not because our corporation tax regime treats them gently.
We must toughen up HMRC. It is unacceptable that there has not been one case challenging an internet company on whether it pays a fair share of corporation tax here. I am not convinced that such companies are acting within the law, and until we challenge them we will not know whether I and the members of my Committee, who I think feel the same as I do on the evidence we have received, are right or wrong. Greater transparency is needed. Gone is the age when one could hide behind taxpayer confidentiality; proper information should be given to the public, whether it is a matter of opening up the books of the FTSE top 100 companies, or more naming and shaming of people for tax avoidance.
We should be tougher on public procurement. I welcomed the initiative, but its practical effect is much weaker than the original intent. We must simplify our tax code—six people working on that is not enough. In a climate in which multinationals value their reputation, they see themselves in our market over the longer term, and they, too—
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I welcome the moves the Government have been making, but there is still a lot more to do. For example, Vodafone declares a profit of £2.5 billion in Luxembourg, where it has no business. It is incredibly easy for companies to export UK profits to their country of choice. Luxembourg is often the country of choice. It is used by Vodafone, Tesco, Pearson, the Daily Express group and many others.
In fact, it is becoming almost compulsory to do this. Low-risk, profitable businesses, such as utilities, have to do it, otherwise they will be taken over, as most of them have been. That applies to trade takeovers too, such as those involving Boots and Cadbury. Under the system here in the UK, it is almost impossible to be a long-term profitable company without doing this kind of activity.
UK profits are exported. That is a key item in the business case for takeovers, and now we have also got the internet making all this even simpler. As many companies have shown, companies can build up a huge business in a country, apparently without being there. A little quoted part of HMRC’s own rules—I have not got time to read it out now—says it should be going after these companies. It does not apply its own rules, so I urge it to start getting tough and the OECD to start driving home the simple principle that if a company sells in a country, it must account for that there and owe taxes there. Until then everyone will be climbing on the bandwagon—or should I say the Trainline, which now apparently routes its ticket sales through Luxembourg?
I firmly believe the key reason for flat UK growth is that so much of our UK economic activity is no longer counted here. Has productivity really fallen so much that 1 million extra people are producing no extra output, or is that because, for example, Amazon, one of our fastest-growing businesses, is not actually here, and is therefore saving vast amounts of tax?
It is time for Brussels to deal with the cuckoos in the EU nest. Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have arrangements that routinely enable tax avoidance. I am sure the free movement of capital was never meant to mean the free removal of taxes. International work is vital. For example, are the Government dealing with scams used by banks? They can create instruments that are traded between countries with different tax regimes, and with a bit of fancy footwork create a net tax reduction manufactured out of thin air.
I welcome the moves to greater transparency, but there is a long way to go. I recommend the recent Private Eye article, “Where there’s muck, there’s brass plates”, which has highlighted that over 11,000 UK limited liability partnerships have been set up since that was enabled by the last Government and they are now one of the corporate vehicles of choice for the world’s money launderers and tax avoiders. They provide a magic mix of UK respectability and absolutely no transparency or scrutiny. Action is needed.
The Government obviously work regularly with advisers on tax matters, but who are they? They are top finance directors, who will almost certainly be engaged in tax avoidance, and big four tax partners who make a very juicy living from advising on how to avoid tax. I recommend that the Government add people who are involved in tax campaigning, as well as campaigning journalists, global poverty campaigners and other experts who do not have a vested interest in tax avoidance and who can see how toxic the current system is.
In a speech in January I went into more detail about the solutions. Today, I will just make one recommendation. It is time to cap the allowable offshore royalty and interest payments, possibly by only allowing a double taxation relief—in other words people only get tax relief on interest if they have paid tax on it somewhere else. Secondly, we should set up new systems to police our national borders—
Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Edward Miliband.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
That was a specific point, but I want to say that it is not only Members of the right hon. Gentleman’s party who have serious questions about primacy. On the European Scrutiny Committee, there is a cross-party problem in particular with the President of the EU’s report “Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union”, which talks about contracts written by the EU—by the Commission—that will be binding on the countries that sign them, and that will then have penalties if they do not carry them out, taking power away from those countries. There is also the question of what happens then with the impact—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Connarty, you were late coming in, so then to make such a long intervention is not good for the Chair either, especially as you will want to speak, as will a lot of other hon. Members. Short interventions are required.
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and I was wrong in seemingly indicating that it was only Government Members who share some of these concerns. He has a long and distinguished record of being not only concerned but an active force in drawing attention and suggesting remedies to some of these matters.
On the proposals before us, one suggestion that has been made is that there should be new mechanisms to increase the level of co-operation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament to contribute to this process—it certainly will not be the end of the matter. It has been stated that how it is done is a matter for the Parliaments to determine themselves. I understand that the Conference of Speakers of EU Parliaments agreed in April to set up such an inter-parliamentary conference to discuss EMU-related issues. The conclusions of that meeting state that the conference
“should consist of representatives from all the National Parliaments of Member countries of the European Union and the European Parliament”.
That reflects one of the recommendations in the Select Committee’s report.
The Government have consistently highlighted the importance of these issues since the December European Council. For example, it was highlighted by the Prime Minster in his Bloomberg speech in January, when he set out his agenda for EU reform. He was clear that the future European Union we need must entail a bigger and more significant role for national Parliaments. He said:
“It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU”.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that
“if the European Parliament were the answer to the question of democratic legitimacy we wouldn’t still be asking it.”
He went on to outline a concrete set of ideas, including the proposal to have an EU “red card” system that would allow national Parliaments, working together, to block legislation that should not be agreed at the European level. Furthermore, we have said that we would support calls by this House to summon a European Commissioner to explain a proposal directly to this Parliament if the Committee demanded it.
Mr Jenkin
I wholeheartedly support the principles set out on the primacy of national Parliaments in the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech, but neither of the proposals that the Minister has just mentioned—the red card and the summoning of an EU Commissioner—addresses the primacy issue. The red card just creates another opportunity for our national Parliament to be outvoted by other national Parliaments, and summoning an EU Commissioner has no legislative effect whatsoever. What are the Government going to table in concrete terms that will assert the primacy of national—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Jenkin, I have mentioned that we want short interventions. That was your second intervention and you are hoping to speak as well. If you want Members to get in, we are going to have to use the time well—it is going very quickly.
Greg Clark
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief. Of course these are not panaceas; they are not solutions to the problem. I have said that when these proposals come forward in a more coherent form than they exist in these discussion documents, we will need to ensure that this House—rather than the European Parliament—unambiguously is the body we look to for the endorsement and the legitimacy of these things.
These are important debates. We are at an early stage of the discussions of economic and monetary union, but I applaud the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, on the part of the Committee, to discuss them at an early stage. I am sure that we will come back to them time and again. We are not expecting major decisions to be made in the weeks ahead, but as with the financial transaction tax and as always, we are very aware of the national interest and will always staunchly pursue and promote it. We will very much have in mind the importance of safeguarding the primacy of this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, I see from your look that both the Chair of the Committee and many other hon. Members are keen to contribute to our discussion, and I look forward to hearing their advice and guidance on both these important issues.
Economic Growth
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
People used to say that England’s bread hung by Lancashire’s thread. In this debate, I want to focus on some of the good news on the rebalancing of the economy. The news has not been all bad, and, despite the economic circumstances, my constituents and the people of Lancashire have a good track record of rebuilding and moving forward and of expanding exports and manufacturing.
Manufacturing output rose last month. Today’s figures show that, in my constituency, unemployment dropped again. It dropped compared with last month and with last year. We now have 81,000 more people working in manufacturing than we did in 2011. Despite all the economic troubles, the people of Lancashire live in the real world. They know how the welfare changes have helped to encourage people to get back into work, and they know that the Government’s policy is trying to help businesses large and small to export and grow.
Despite our domestic difficulties on the European Union at the moment, that “real-worldness” of my Lancashire constituents has been demonstrated in the recent local elections. The real story in Lancashire was not the United Kingdom Independence party; it was that the Labour party failed to take back the county that it had run for 26 years. Funnily enough, people are not convinced by the Ed and Ed show, or by Labour’s economic credibility. But let us move away from the European thing. I know that the Opposition would like to focus on it, but I think that it will pass—[Laughter.] Opposition Members might laugh, but there are nine marginal seats in Lancashire, and if Labour cannot win Lancashire county council, it is not going to win a general election fast. Labour knows that.
BAE is one of our local employers, and 19,000 people work in the aerospace industry. Profits are up, orders are up, and it has recently landed a £2.5 billion order from Oman to build Hawks and Typhoons. The Typhoon Eurofighter is made in Samlesbury and Warton. That did not happen by accident, but because of the investment in skills that successive Governments and this Government have put into my constituency. Recently, the Government announced extra funding for Preston further education college, and more is on the way for Myerscough. Building up the skills base is one reason why BAE remains one of the most competitive and leading exporters in the country, training thousands of apprentices every year—some Government funded, some not.
As we speak, the Prime Minister is abroad yet again, trying to make sure that we negotiate a free trade treaty to allow British business to prosper in the American market. Only recently, we had a state visit from the President of United Arab Emirates, which was partly about trying to sell more British and Lancashire-made manufacturing to the middle east. The Prime Minister has taken rebalancing the economy and moving forward on growth seriously.
We have seen investment through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, under its Secretary of State—the Liberal Democrat part of our coalition—that has helped to support the Lancashire local enterprise zone in Samlesbury, where we hope to get skills academies and more investment in our young people.
Then, beyond that, are the changes the Chancellor has produced in the Budget—an increase in the use of the R and D tax credit that rewards our investment, for example, and the rolling out of the patent box, which means people who exploit their intellectual property in this country will pay some of the lowest corporation tax in Europe. That is why this country has a future in growing its manufacturing base and is on the right path to rebalancing.
In future, I want the Government to continue to invest in the F-35 joint strike fighter and the new generation of unmanned aerial vehicles. I also look to a city deal for Preston, hopefully worth £300 million—if we can get the Treasury to move along a bit quicker.
Something that is important for the future of the whole country is shale gas, and it is under my feet, in my constituency, that the Bowland shale exists. It is currently valued at 35 billion barrels of oil equivalent of gas—a $200 billion revenue stream, should it be extracted. We need it in Lancashire and in the country more widely for security of supply; we need it as alternative energy; and we need it to make sure that this country benefits from its assets and its mineral wealth.
We in Lancashire have a story to tell. Lancashire’s history is about reinventing itself and building for the future. It is not for nothing that Preston is one of the northern cities that bucked the trend since 1908 and has been one of the most progressive cities. Let us remember for the future that—
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). The Democratic Unionist party endorses his views on the amendment, which we support. We believe it is important that the people of the United Kingdom should have a say about their relationship with Europe. Some of those who oppose the commitment to a referendum claim that it will somehow leave us with four years of uncertainty and that that will damage investment in the UK, but the genie is out of the bottle as far as renegotiation and a referendum are concerned. Any investor knows what will happen at some stage in the future, so there should be no difficulty in giving the people of the United Kingdom a say on this very important issue. I will concentrate on other issues that relate to economic growth, but I accept that our relationship with Europe impacts on economic growth in this country.
If we are to achieve the objectives in the Queen’s Speech of giving people job opportunities, rewarding hard work and reforming welfare, economic growth is important. If we are to create economic growth, we need proper stimulus. The Chancellor and the Government argue that we cannot borrow more in order to borrow less. That is not true. Good, solid investment in the economy would help us to grow and to pay our debts. That is not the view of those on the extreme left wing; it is the view of the IMF, which is hardly a left-wing organisation. In fact, many of its policies resonate with what is said by the Government. It is also the view of many industry organisations.
More importantly, the evidence of what has been happening in the economy bears out that view. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) talked about what is happening in his constituency. Nearly every example that he gave was the result of stimulus through Government borrowing and spending to create infrastructure and produce jobs. I could give stacks of examples from Northern Ireland. There has been investment in our tourism industry. Not so long ago, we got a Barnett consequential as a result of the Government deciding to spend more money on housing. We put it into co-ownership housing, which has brought money down from the banks and has led to almost half of the houses being built in the private sector. Just a small amount of money from the public sector has created construction jobs and allowed people to pay their taxes, which adds to Government revenue and helps to pay off the deficit.
There is a strong case, even from traditional supporters of the Government, for borrowing and spending more money to stimulate the economy. The Chancellor made a big point today about the money markets. Actually, the money markets are quite relaxed about this. They are lending money to the United Kingdom on negative interest rates. There is more demand for Government bonds than supply. If there are sensible investment policies, the money can be made available. The question is whether there is the will or whether the Government have some other motive.
I am disappointed that there is not much detail on what the Government intend to do about banking. According to the figures published by the British Bankers Association, lending by the banks in Northern Ireland has fallen substantially since 2010. We have not dealt with the banking crisis. There is not time in this debate to talk about the detail, but unless the Government grasp the nettle and decide what to do with failing banks that are undercapitalised and unable or unwilling to lend, we will not stimulate growth. I believe that there is great potential and that a Government stimulus could release the billions of pounds of cash assets that are sitting on company balance sheets, which would enable us to get growth and achieve the objectives of—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will give way very shortly after he has made those comments.
Charlie Elphicke
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
My constituents feel that 5 million in this country could work but do not. They ought to have more investment and opportunity, and more chances to fulfil their potential. That is why the reforms to welfare to make work pay, the reforms to the skills agenda, the reforms to control migration, and the reforms to control, police and secure our borders are important—they give our fellow citizens more of a chance to do well and succeed in life, and to see their potential unleashed.