Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Alex Chalk

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Legal aid is absolutely vital in a fair society. It is one of the vital bulwarks of our liberty, and we take extremely seriously the needs of legal aid providers. Steps have been taken to ensure that where there is money in the system—more than £400 million—that is more easily available for practitioners to draw down, so that they can be helped to weather the storm. That is of course over and above other schemes that apply to legal aid practitioners as to everyone else, whether that is the furlough scheme or the bounce-back loans scheme. Those measures are in place to keep these vital providers in business so that they can continue to do their important work.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Votes at 16

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Alex Chalk

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Thank you very much for calling me to speak, Mr Howarth. It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). If I may say so at the outset, what a pleasure it is to hear this matter being debated in a responsible and uplifting atmosphere, because there will be young people watching this debate and those are the sorts of qualities that have been in short supply recently.

However, I am afraid that I take a different view on this issue to other hon. Members and I will explain why. One of the points made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) that resonated me was that democracy is enriched by having the widest participation possible. That sounds unanswerable, but it begs a question: what is the widest participation possible? Should 13-year-olds be allowed to participate? I have met some 13-year-olds who speak with great authority on political issues. However, the fact is that we in this House have to make a decision about what the cut-off point for such participation should be.

What should be the underlying principles for that decision? The first principle that we have to grapple with is whether we take the view that it is only adults who should be able to vote, or whether we say that people who are not yet at the age of majority should be able to vote. I take as a starting point the UN convention on the rights of the child, which is absolutely clear. It says that young people have the right to be treated as children, and by the way that means that they should be afforded the rights they should enjoy as children up to the age of 18. That manifests itself in issues such as service on the frontline, and so on and so forth.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Chalk]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment; let me just develop the point a fraction.

That acknowledgement of the age of majority at 18 is, in fact, reflected across the overwhelming majority of countries that are signatories to the United Nations. We could be forgiven in this place for taking the view that, “Well, actually, the world is moving towards 16,” but that is simply not the case at all. The United States, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain—in all those countries, the voting age is 18. In other parts of the world, things differ; for example, in Singapore the voting age is 21. It is true that some countries are moving in the direction of allowing voting at 16, Austria being one, but they remain overwhelmingly in the minority.

If we want to take the view that adulthood begins at 16, it is critically important that our country does so consistently. Otherwise, we would have the very odd situation where someone would be perceived to be old enough to vote in an election, but when they came out of the polling station they would not be entitled to walk across the road and go into a betting shop to “vote” on the outcome of that election; that would be odd. Alternatively, what about the situation where a 16-year-old, having voted in a general election, would not be entitled to sit on a jury to decide whether or not one of their peers was guilty of a serious crime, such as murder, manslaughter or rape?

My final point about inconsistency is that under the proposals, someone might be old enough to vote but not mature enough—so the law says—to use a tanning booth or buy fireworks. I am not saying for a second that there is not a legitimate argument to be had, but I think the electorate would find it extremely curious if we were to say that a person has the maturity to decide who should be the Government of a country that spends collectively £842 billion every year, yet does not have the maturity to decide to use a tanning booth.

Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Alex Chalk

Second reading committee: House of Commons
Monday 2nd July 2018 General Committees

[Alex Chalk]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the victim must be at the heart of this. Lest we forget, that is the whole reason for having this Bill. However, my view is that the court can take into account the impact on the victim in deciding what sentence is imposed. The Bill will ensure the notification requirements are engaged only for offences where the impact on the victim has been so great as to warrant a significant sentence.

Where I do agree with my right hon. Friend is on the potential to criminalise an individual’s motivation. I can well imagine circumstances where an individual goes to a festival, takes a whole load of photographs and says, “Look, I think this is disgusting stuff, but there’s a market for it. I’m going to put it online and sell it online. Frankly, whether other people get gratification from it, I don’t know. I certainly don’t want to humiliate or distress these individuals; I’m in it for the money.”

Suppose evidence to that effect emerged, such as an email that that individual had sent to the people who were going to upload those photographs to the internet. It would be rather odd if, in court, he was able to invoke by way of a defence the fact that his motivation had nothing to do with sexual gratification, because the email showed that he was not interested in that stuff, and that he had no interest in humiliating, alarming or distressing victims. If he were able to show that he was purely in it for the money, that would be a rather curious argument.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong argument, but would not the very fact of someone uploading such photographs to the internet or putting them in the public domain inevitably cause harm and distress, and would not anyone applying common sense understand that such an act causes harm and distress and therefore fulfils the requirements in the Bill? If it does not, I am genuinely interested to hear more, but I do not understand how it does not.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Inevitably, it would turn on the evidence. Supposing such an act were prosecuted, the prosecutor would no doubt say, “We’ve got this email, which shows that this person’s intention was purely to be paid £100 for these images that he got at the festival, but he must have known in passing them on that their value was in the fact that they would lead to distress or gratification, even if that was not his primary purpose but a residual purpose.” Therefore, the prosecution should say, “Members of the jury, forget about that email. It’s irrelevant. Use your common sense.”

I suspect that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the jury would exercise their common sense and justice would be done. My concern, however, is about whether that is really an argument we want to be having in front of a jury. If there were the potential to close that argument off, a number of judges and even jurors may welcome such clarity in the law.

I congratulate the Government and the individuals involved, including the hon. Member for Bath, on their timely, robust and proportionate approach.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Alex Chalk

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that. There is a particular onus on the Government to be steadfast and clear in their rejection of those legal challenges and the problems they potentially pose to our democracy. Of course it is just the BBC and The Guardian that have been threatened with legal action, not any of the other 90 or so media outlets based in other countries. It is UK-based firms and media organisations that have been threatened with that action, so I hope the Minister will make clear to us today whether or not he agrees with Appleby’s threat of legal action against those who revealed the details of the Paradise papers in the public interest.

Many of the measures in the Bill intended to prevent aggressive tax avoidance and evasion do not go far enough. I have already referred in this House to clause 21, which seems to adopt a confusing new approach to measuring profit shifting, rather than aiming to reduce it per se. Yet again, there sadly appears to be deafening silence here concerning the need for tax simplification, with only minor measures that do not meet the required standard of a thoroughgoing, holistic assessment of the overall impacts of tax reliefs, which we desperately need in this country if we are to have proper Government accounting.

Finally, we see in the Bill a number of additional measures that seem intended mainly just to clean up previous mistakes by this Government, many of them following criticism from Labour Members. In clause 35 and schedule 10, for example, we find anti-avoidance provisions in relation to payments and benefits made from offshore trusts, no doubt reflecting the concerns we raised about the potential misuse of offshore trusts by non-doms. Let us be clear, before this issue crops up yet again in this debate: this Government have not abolished long-term, non-dom status. The new measures do not apply to those whose parents are non-doms, as is often the case, and a 15-year window is provided for individuals to get their affairs in order. In another example, clause 28 closes the loophole introduced by the coalition Government in 2011 that allowed foreign companies to hold on to an asset-stripped subsidiary for six years until they were then able to claim loss relief in excess of any genuine economic loss to the group. Again, the measure tidies up a problem that was created previously by those involved with this Administration.

To conclude, this Finance Bill was a chance for strong action against aggressive tax avoidance and evasion, but, sadly, we have here a paltry Bill, which some Conservative Members have praised in some of these debates for being thin. It is not thin because it is concise; it is thin because, sadly, just like this Government, it is lacking in ideas and ambition. We need a change now, more than ever.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I welcome this Finance Bill, because it does three things so far as taxation is concerned: first, it prioritises increasing the total pot for public services while recognising the common-sense proposition that we must live within our means; secondly, it entrenches and enhances the fundamentally progressive nature of the tax system; and, thirdly, it redoubles our country’s efforts to tackle tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. The theme that unites those three strands is a relentless focus on discharging our obligation to the next generation: on ensuring that we are laying the foundations for a better, fairer country; one whose best days are yet to come. In doing so, we are observing our solemn duty to those who will come after us. We must not fail them, not just because history will condemn us if we do not, but because we ought to be able in this House to recognise that moral obligation for ourselves.

On tax avoidance and evasion, there has rightly been a sense that multinational corporations have been seeking to game the taxation system, using their market power to their financial advantage. That sticks in my craw, the craw of my constituents and the craw of Members across this House, because when we talk about the rule of law, that is about ensuring that we are all equal before not only the criminal law, but taxation law. Few things are more corrosive to public confidence in the enterprise economy than the sense that large corporations are wriggling out of their responsibilities to society—these responsibilities provide free healthcare and education, as well as a safe and secure environment to operate in. So I welcome the fact that the tax gap in our country has been driven down significantly, from 8% to 6%. That translates into an additional £12.5 billion per annum, which is more than the entire Ministry of Justice budget and far more than the entire annual spend on the prison system. We have the lowest tax gap in the world.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that 6% does not take into account profit shifting? It comes from HMRC effectively marking its own homework and patting itself on the back.

[Alex Chalk]

Absolutely not. It is an internationally recognised statistic that shows that this country bears comparison with any other developed nation in the world, and it marks a significant improvement on the situation that prevailed under the previous Labour Government. The fact is that more than £160 billion extra has been received since 2010. To put that into context, it is more than the entire annual NHS budget.

We have addressed egregious loopholes that allowed some foreign nationals not to pay capital gains tax when they sold houses in the UK. That allowed people to live in the UK permanently but claim non-dom status; and it allowed people to avoid paying tax by calling their salary from their own company a loan. Those were abuses and we have closed them down. It is important to note that the UK has spearheaded a groundbreaking initiative to share information on beneficial ownership with more than 50 jurisdictions, including every British overseas territory and Crown dependency with a financial centre.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Chalk]

No, because I am going to conclude.

All that I have described shows the UK’s commitment to transparency and that we are at the cutting edge of financial propriety.

It is absolutely right that the Government take further action to raise £4.8 billion by 2022-23. First, we are tackling online VAT evasion by making online marketplaces jointly liable for their sellers’ unpaid VAT; secondly, we are investing an additional £150 million to fund HMRC staff and the latest technology; and thirdly, we are tackling further disguised remuneration schemes, because if people are gaming the system, we should call it out.

In short, the Bill bears down on aggressive tax avoidance and evasion. It sends out the clear message that we in this country believe in innovation, modernisation, investment and employment. We will back businesses that unlock human potential and generate jobs and wages, but we expect businesses to play by the rules, honour their dues to society and respect the next generation. The Bill meets those priorities and lays the foundations for a country that is fit for the future.