Financial Services Industry

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That would be the normal course of events. It is possible for another hon. Member to speak if there is time to do so, but ordinarily that is on the understanding that the Member concerned has the agreement of the sponsoring Member and of the Minister. I am not sure whether the Minister’s agreement has been sought. If the Minister were content for the hon. Gentleman to speak, I think he would intend to do so extremely briefly. Is the Minister content?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is an accommodating Minister, and therefore a suitable expression of gratitude I know will be forthcoming from the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood, Mr Mark Reckless.

[Mark Reckless]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I first clarify whether the time limit of half an hour or 7.30 pm applies? It is not entirely clear from the Order Paper.

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is very straightforward: until 7.30 pm. That is the factual position, but the norm in these circumstances is for agreement to contribute to have been achieved in advance. In this instance, in which the Minister is graciously agreeing to accommodate the hon. Gentleman—and it is a case of graciously agreeing—luck should not be pushed. I am always happy to hear the hon. Gentleman in an orderly way. On that basis, we will now hear his thoughts briefly.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have no intention of speaking at any great length or keeping the Minister from her dinner or from her very important duties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) talked about competition and breaking up a cosy cartel in banking. I have heard him use similar language about our political system. I think there is some commonality between what we see in banking and what we see in politics. I would like to add to his remarks on solvency II. As well as the risk of starving corporate sectors of credit they might otherwise receive, I have a concern that if there is a regulatory push to force insurers to hold Government bonds, particularly when they are required to hold those only within the eurozone for certain purposes, that actually may increase risk relative to holding diversified global corporate bonds.

I want to make three brief points. First, the barriers to entry in financial services, particularly banking, so often stem from regulation—in banking, there are minimum requirements in terms of assets, time and other things—and I credit the Minister, the Treasury and our regulators with reducing them in recent years. Will she give an assessment of how that has worked? Have we managed to relax the requirements without problems developing, and might it be possible to relax them further?

Secondly, the extent of competition in banking seems often to be the product of the state of the monetary cycle, whether globally or in a particular country. In the late 1980s, we saw what happened with the Japanese banks that kindly built Eurotunnel for us but made enormous losses in doing so. In the 2000s, we saw the explosion of credit, and particularly in this country, from 2001, we saw what happened in the inter-bank credit market and across Europe. In some ways, there were positives to that—for example, greater cross-border competition between banks in Europe—but it was driven by over-optimism about the eurozone and the state of monetary policy. Since we have retreated from that position, if anything the euro appears to have driven banks back to national markets, and it is the individual sovereign—the taxpayer—who has been required to bail out the banks, which I fear has reduced the competition we were otherwise seeing from that source.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend spoke about the limits and restrictions on the current account market. I am also concerned about the small and medium-sized enterprise market. A constituency case concerning the potential mis-selling of interest rate swaps and a company called Port Medway Marina has taught me that a small business can become so entangled with a bank that, when it gets into a dispute with the bank, even if over only one aspect of their relationship, it can be difficult to disentangle from the bank and move to another one. That is a limit on competition that I fear banks too often exploit. If the Minister could say something about that, I would be very grateful. I concur with my hon. Friend’s comments about her record in the Treasury.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

Her Majesty’s Opposition bear a heavy responsibility, because they set the dividing line in this debate. They chose to attack the coalition Government for cutting too far, too fast and to set up the Chancellor as if he were the author of austerity. The reality is four years—it is coming up to five years—of fiscal incontinence and a borrowing binge greater than any this country has seen in peacetime. In the run-up to the last election, a number of Conservative voices drew attention to the Labour Government having borrowed in three or four years more than the country had borrowed in the previous 300. Since then, however, the coalition Government have borrowed even more.

Both Labour and the Conservatives seek to reduce our deficit with at least one hand tied behind their back. Their excuse is crisis in the eurozone, yet they failed to explain, despite the claims, particularly from Conservative Members, that the economy is supposedly doing so well, why we are borrowing so much. Why are we borrowing so much more than France, Italy, Spain and Greece? The answer is that the Government have failed to keep their promise to deal with the deficit, let alone to pay down our debts. They have tied their hands behind their back in the way that every other party in the Chamber has, except my own. There is a consensus commitment across the House—it is not in the country and it is not shared by my party—to spend between £10 billion and £20 billion each year on a budget contribution to the European Union, to spend a sum rising to £13 billion on a net transfer of overseas aid, and to spend a sum rising from £2.3 billion in 2012 to £9.8 billion in 2020, partly classified as spending, through the levy control framework. There is also the vow the party leaders made in Scotland to carry on the commitment to the Barnett formula for as far as the eye can see. With those spending commitments, the Government are enormously handicapped in reducing the deficit.

[Guy Opperman]

Given his policy on Europe, what would the hon. Gentleman say to my farmers in Northumberland? Is it his proposal that on withdrawal from Europe, there will be a reduction in support to the farmers?

[Mark Reckless]

The common agricultural policy operates with such fantastical inefficiency that there is enormous scope for treating farmers better while spending less money. The problem is that the Government and the country are spending money that we do not have. The problem is not just the level of the commitments I described, which my party does not endorse and would make savings from, but that the spending has been allocated on the basis of forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility. When this Parliament started, the OBR was essentially one man: Professor Sir Alan Budd. Instead of relying on the electoral mandate and authority of the Government—or the institutional ability of the Treasury, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) did—the Chancellor based his whole economic and fiscal strategy on the forecast of one man, Professor Sir Alan Budd.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said that GDP evolved in a way that was worse than almost anyone predicted, but he did not say that the OBR’s forecast was far more optimistic than that of most economists at the time. That forecast was made even more optimistic in October 2010, and we are paying the price for that. The Chancellor has come to realise that he needs to restrict benefits growth to 1% a year for at least two years—it is perhaps now three years or more—in the same way that public sector pay has been restricted, but back in 2010, 2011 and 2012, he raised benefits by inflation when at times it was more than 5% and wage growth was only 2%.

It is those fiscal commitments—to the EU, to overseas aid, to energy and to Scotland—combined with putting so much trust in the one individual and the three men and a dog in the OBR and its approach to economic forecasting that has led the country into this terrible fiscal position. The OBR forecasts that the fiscal position will go back into balance, with more than £20 billion of surplus in 2019-20, but that reduction in Government borrowing must be predicated on a combination of an increase in private sector borrowing and a reduction in the current account deficit.

The OBR tells us that there will be an explosion in household debt and at the same time a big fall in the current account deficit. It made that forecast on a risible analysis. It looks at what has happened to our investment balance. For 300 years, the country has earned its way through a surplus on investment income. That has disappeared because of the combination of the fiscal incontinence of both the Labour party and the Conservative party, which have borrowed such enormous amounts of money, and what the banking crisis has done to impair the quality and quantity of our net asset base. The OBR simply assumes that that investment income will magically come back. If it does not, things will be a lot worse. If we are to carry on giving 0.7% of GDP to overseas aid, £10 billion to £20 billion to the EU—perhaps 2% net of Government transfers—then unless the Government run a surplus to pay that, the private sector has to borrow more. These two parties have left us in a fiscal mess.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who has set a superb example to those on the Treasury Bench of how to extol this policy. She also secured a Westminster Hall debate, which was useful in pressing the arguments for it.

Notwithstanding today’s procedural issues, the Treasury deserves credit for introducing this measure. It has taken four and a half years of this Government, but the previous Government had 13 years and the one before that had 18 years without introducing this overdue but incredibly important and beneficial reform.

The hon. Member for St Albans has done a lot to push the argument forward and so have other Members. I recall having a conversation with the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)—at that stage at least, he was my friend—in which I made the case for reforming this tax, and he said very clearly that, if we were to do it, it would need to be revenue neutral. However attractive the reform might have been, the number of losers would have made it difficult without the £700 million or £800 million a year that the Treasury is putting in, so there has been a change. If that money oils the wheels of a reform that gets rid of substantial distortions, such as those under the previous tax system, that is a good use of it, and I believe that the Treasury has made the right choice.

My constituents will benefit. Much of our housing stock has been around the £250,000 mark, with rather less around the £500,000 mark. At both levels, the fixed charge of £5,000 once people move past those points has been a significant problem for the housing market and, as the hon. Member for St Albans has said, a lot of the subsidiary industries based around it. That has never been more the case than with the mortgage market review and the general reduction in appetite for some of the riskier lending among banks that has made it difficult for young people and those on the early steps of the housing ladder. They are often capital-constrained and having to find the extra money for the stamp duty almost invariably means that it cannot be spent on something else. It actually often leads to those transactions not happening.

I would criticise, not the Treasury, but the Office for Budget Responsibility for the lack of detailed workings and the lack of comprehensiveness in its forecast for the housing market and how that relates to its estimates for the cost of the stamp duty measure. The OBR has estimated that transactions would rise by 1.1% on account of the reform; I am sure that is a great underestimate. Similarly, the OBR has made an assumption—or a forecast—of a 0.2% increase in residential investment relative to GDP, yet it has assumed that that will be offset by reductions elsewhere in the economy, which it fails to particularise or explain.

I am not impressed, in this area or in others, with the three-men-and-a-dog approach that the OBR has often taken. No wonder it cannot be expected to take on the Opposition spending proposals as well, not least because it just looks at parts of them, casts its eye over them, scans them a bit and says, “That sounds reasonable,” and nods them through. On the housing side, it has not come anywhere near to taking into account the positive impact that the stamp duty reform will have on the economy, in freeing up transactions and increasing labour mobility, especially around the £250,000 and £500,000 pinch points.

I think that the reform will be very significant. The cost estimates are £365 million for this year, £760 million for next year and £840 million the following year. An assumption has obviously been made of a rise in transactions that leads to the annualised costs falling off once we get into the next fiscal year, because there will have been time for the lags to work through and we will be witnessing a rise in transactions on account of the reform. My strong suspicion, however, is that that rise in transactions will be quite a lot more than the OBR has stated, and as the hon. Member for St Albans said, there will be significant add-ons to other industries that depend on the housing market. In my view, as a result of getting rid of the significant distortions that we have had, there will be dynamic, positive impacts on the economy, which the OBR and—as so often—the Treasury have not taken into account. Such thinking has held back good reforms of taxes in these areas.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman rightly said that labour mobility would increase. People have told me that they were deterred from moving into higher house value areas because they would not only have to take on a higher mortgage but find the tax—almost a tax on their ability to find a job—if they moved to a place where there were more job opportunities but higher house values.

[Mark Reckless]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and that requirement comes when people are most capital-constrained, especially in the current mortgage market. So charging the tax in that way restricts mobility, restricts spending on moving home and leads to fewer transactions.

I have had constituents who have moved from St Albans to Rochester and Strood, attracted by our better-value housing stock. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made a forecast that my return to the House as the UKIP Member for Rochester and Strood would lead to falls in house prices across my constituency. I am not sure that that will happen, and in any event, I strongly welcome this real supply-side reform. When the Government do the right thing, particularly in an extremely sensible supply-side reform that should free up the market and lead to significantly greater economic activity around the housing market, I am happy to support that reform, for my constituents and for my party.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who made some good wider economic points. The key point about this reform is that the Government are making a very large cash input, in effect, to make the housing market more liquid and help people move house when they want or need to.

The Government and the Treasury should look at every system where there are huge slab effects, whether on the tax or the benefits side. Slab systems, by their nature, produce cliff edges; and cliff edges, by their nature, produce strange behaviour. We see that in the current benefits system, where interactions between benefits can produce behaviour that was never intended. In this case, those boundaries have led to elaborate avoidance. Overpricing of carpets and curtains is commonly used to reduce the apparent house price to below a threshold. Smoothing out the profile of stamp duty charging reduces the necessity to engage in such above-board avoidance, or nefarious avoidance, which I am sure has gone on as well, owing to the large sums of money involved.

I very much welcome the changes. I should declare an interest, in that my daughter, who lives in Basingstoke, is likely to benefit from them very soon. The reform could have been carried out in a cash-neutral way, but would have been difficult to implement because of the losers involved, so I welcome the injection of money that has enabled it to be framed in such a way that 98% of people will see no change or a saving.

This progressive reform is another example of how the Government are making the people with the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden. Houses sold at over £937,000 will incur an increase in stamp duty, and a £5 million house will incur a stamp duty increase from £350,000 to half a million pounds—so an extra £160,000 on a large house.

[Mark Reckless]

May I put on the record a correction in relation to figures that were mentioned earlier in the debate? Purchasers of houses between £937,000 and £1 million lose out. Then there is another quite significant area from £1 million up to, I think, between £1.15 million and £1.2 million that will benefit from the reform.

[Ian Swales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is not something that I have examined closely, given the nature of my constituency, which I shall mention.

The reform is yet another example of increasing tax on millionaires, which has happened on so many fronts under this Government, including capital gains and pensions contributions. Also, with the exception of the very last day of the previous Government, income tax is 5% higher than it was in their 13 years. I welcome that; it is important that we make those who are most able to do so pay more, and this is yet another measure by which we are doing that.

There are some oddities. People will gain all the way up the chain, but for those buying at exactly £250,000 and exactly £500,000 there is no gain.

The effect in my constituency of Redcar is pretty good. I do not think that there is a property worth £937,000 in the entire constituency, so every one of my constituents will benefit from the change. I have to welcome it from that point of view. I simply ask the Minister for clarification on the point that we always have to raise on Treasury measures: whether there is any possibility of avoidance. Will these arrangements be applied clearly to overseas buyers? Will they be applied to corporate buyers when the house is being moved through a share transfer—and is that loophole being, or has it been, closed? Will they be applied where the house is being bought to let, either by individual landlords or a corporate structure?

With those few questions on avoidance, I fully support these measures. Making the housing market more liquid will lead to a stronger economy, and the way in which the reform is being implemented leads to a fairer society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

It is a pleasure to reply to this debate. I am grateful for the warm support for this measure. I am sometimes so enthusiastic about these changes to SDLT that I am almost breathless, but thankfully on this occasion I am not. A number of points have been raised about this measure. Of course, there will be an opportunity to debate the legislation on Second Reading next Wednesday, when we might pick up some of those points. However, I will attempt to address some of the issues that have been raised in the debate.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) asked why we are not reforming non-residential SDLT at the same time. The argument I would make is that the market for non-residential property is very different, and the urgency for change is not the same, so I think that a different case needs to be made in that regard. We are not persuaded by the need to change that at present. Of course, all taxes are kept under review and the Government will consider that ahead of future fiscal events.

The hon. Lady also asked about the impact on the housing market. As I have said, our reforms will change the amount of SDLT due for the majority of homes, leading to a cut in the cost of moving home in the vast majority of cases. That will have a small impact on house prices overall, although the size of that effect is expected to be lower than the usual fluctuations in the housing market caused by many factors that occur year on year. I am not denying that there will be an effect, but there are many factors that come into play when it comes to house prices—

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

And one of those factors, I suppose, could be the selection of an unfortunate party, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman at that point.

[Mark Reckless]

Was the Minister citing his own view just now, or merely regurgitating that of the OBR, because the major change in its forecast, of course, is that it has just changed its forecasting method from assuming that it will be average earnings in future to employing a model that it had only used in earlier years?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman brings me to his points about the OBR assessment. I was interested to hear what he said about modelling. He argued that the consequence of the changes we are implementing would be more beneficial for the economy than the OBR has set out in its projections. It is right that the OBR is independent and reaches its own conclusions. If the numbers are of a cautious nature, as he argues, then it is better to err on the side of caution. He made an interesting argument. I believe that these changes will have a beneficial effect in terms of labour market mobility and so on, and should therefore be welcomed. In putting the numbers into the public finances, it is right that we follow the independent body.

As I said earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has been very prominent and persistent in making the case for reform of stamp duty. I am pleased that she welcomed these reforms so enthusiastically. I shall certainly ensure that the Chancellor is made aware of the views of Lori, her constituent, who is putting up a poster of him as a consequence of the reforms. I am very pleased that they have pleased Lori, and, I am sure, many other residents of St Albans. My hon. Friend made an important point about “zombie zones”; I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood referred to “bunching”. The OBR statistics on how the pattern of transactions can be distorted are interesting. For example, there are 30 times more transactions in the £5,000 band below the £250,000 threshold than in the £5,000 band above it. That gives an indication of the scale of the distortions in the previous regime.

The hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Redcar (Ian Swales) asked whether cash-neutral reform would be possible. It would have been very difficult to make these changes without some cost to the Exchequer in terms of forgone revenue. That might answer the question, “Why do this now?” As a consequence of other measures brought forward in the autumn statement, we can afford to fund these reforms, and it is right that we took that opportunity.

The hon. Member for Redcar referred to avoidance. Stamp duty land tax was being avoided far too often. One of the significant achievements of the Government and HMRC in the past few years is that we have managed to address that in relation to the number of SDLT schemes marketed by tax avoidance advisers, if I may put it that way—promoters of tax avoidance schemes. The amount of that avoidance has reduced very sharply. We have brought in a number of effective measures. For example, the annual tax on enveloped dwellings has played an important role. We have made great progress on this. For that reason, we are able to get the revenue that we will get because of the changes affecting high-end property.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) highlighted the reasons for ensuring that there is no gap between announcement and implementation. That is why this is a PCTA motion. I remember him making that point to me in private some months ago, so he may well have influenced the way in which the Government have proceeded, given the need to move forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) made a very thoughtful speech, and I am grateful for his observations. He is a long-standing critic of the stamp duty regime, and he has been very energetic in highlighting some of the failures in the system. He talked about future uprating. He was also the first speaker to use the expression “long-term economic plan”, so I congratulate him on rectifying a grievous omission from the debate until that point. On future uprating, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), we have set out the bands. We have not set out plans for indexation or future uprating, but future Governments will clearly wish to return to that in the long term. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, we will no doubt have this debate on a number of occasions. I dare say that he will be very energetic in campaigning for uprating in future, and I look forward to receiving his representations.

I thank the House for its support for this measure, and reiterate my apology for not being here at the very beginning of the debate. I hope that the motion will have the support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Stamp Duty Land Tax (Residential Property Transactions);

That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Secretary Eric Pickles, Mr David Gauke, Priti Patel and Andrea Leadsom bring in the Bill.

Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill

Presentation and First Reading

Mr David Gauke accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about stamp duty land tax on residential property transactions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 132) with explanatory notes (Bill 132—EN).

Financial Conduct Authority Redress Scheme

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). He said that the Treasury should be leaning on the Financial Conduct Authority. I wonder where the Financial Conduct Authority itself should be leaning, because it has a considerable incentive to get this right.

We are talking about a precedent-setting voluntary redress scheme. In theory, if there is a class of customers who have not been treated fairly by the banks contrary to their regulatory principles, it would seem a good idea to establish a voluntary scheme to identify those who are in that class, the quantum of their loss, and the proper way in which to compensate them. If such cases can be dealt with in that way, rather than via the ombudsman or the courts, there is scope for significant cost savings and also, potentially, for a fair and proper system. However, there appear to have been a number of operational problems.

Schemes such as this require a degree of timeliness. Members have referred to the six-month delay in the assessment of the scheme. The purpose of the delayed assessment was to ensure consistency, but it appears to have failed, certainly given the approach of one bank, RBS, which has already been mentioned by several Members. If there is to be a voluntary system, it needs to have the confidence of the banks which are voluntarily participating in it, as well as the confidence of customers. Unless there is consistency—if one bank is allowed to get away with not compensating in a number of areas in which other banks are compensating—neither this nor future schemes will have the confidence of users or providers.

There also needs to be transparency, in relation to the principles of the scheme and how it will operate, but also in relation to the information that is provided. One of the main problems is the fact that the scheme is operating a black box. The customers and their advisers who have the most knowledge of the circumstances involved are unable to make a judgment on whether it is in the customers’ interests to enter the scheme in the first place, or on whether they are being dealt with properly within it. They are also unable to provide information that might correct misjudgments, because such information is not shared between the independent assessor, or the bank, and the end customer who is seeking compensation. May I ask the Economic Secretary why that information is not shared? Would this not be a better voluntary redress scheme, and a better model for other potential schemes, were it to be shared appropriately?

Consequential loss is a particularly important issue, which has arisen in a constituency case of mine. It seems that what was said about the operation of the scheme and the availability of consequential loss has not come to pass. At some point in the design of the scheme and in attempts to ensure its consistency, a decision seems to have been made—or, at least, a practice seems to have has developed—whereby virtually all consequential loss claims are turned down, or are paid to a vanishingly small degree.

According to information given to me by Berg, of the 1,535 cases that have been assessed for the purposes of consequential loss, 871 have received no consequential loss redress. Of those that have, 502 have received between £1 and less than £10,000, 51 have received between £10,000 and £100,000, and just 11 have received more than £100,000. I understand that a further case has been settled between a charity and RBS, partly thanks to the intervention of a Member of Parliament yesterday.

It is very difficult to make a proper decision on whether to enter the scheme if information is not shared, and if statements made about consequential loss are not borne out. As many Members know, there is limited competition for small businesses in the banking market. However, what has become clear to me, as I have looked at this game in a particular case, is the extent to which businesses are locked in by the nature of the swap product, and then locked further by dispute or litigation relating to that product. While in some areas a business might be able to go to a different supplier, that is almost impossible to do in many circumstances where a swap has been sold and then a dispute has developed later as to that swap.

The business I seek to draw attention to today is Port Medway Marina Ltd in my constituency of Rochester and Strood, next to the village of Cuxton. David and Neil Taylor, a father and son team, have built up and developed that business, but have been held back in an extraordinary way by their bank and a dispute over a swap entered into. I do not want to speak negatively about that bank, which in this case is Barclays. I have had positive dealings with Barclays on constituency matters. I opened its impressive new branch on Chatham high street, and more generally it can be said that it is not like RBS or Lloyds HBOS. It did not get the taxpayer bail-out. There is a huge difference between having some temporary guarantees and taking tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Barclays did not take that, and it deserves credit for that, and I look to it to be reasonable in its dealings with this set of constituents, as in other dealings I have had with it. It may be the redress scheme that is causing the problems, rather than the relationship there might otherwise be.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is being complimentary about Barclays, but as I understand it Barclays is one of two banks that will not pay out any redress unless the company involved also agrees to the consequential loss. That is rather unfair, particularly when those businesses are in urgent need of financial support.

[Mark Reckless]

I was not aware that Barclays was one of only two banks in that category. I am talking about a particular instance involving my constituents. They have an award, including interest, of £140,000, but they are only allowed to get that £140,000 if they give up their claim for consequential loss. As the hon. Gentleman says, that is unfair and I would encourage Barclays to look at that again, but also to look at the specifics of the case involving Port Medway Marina Ltd. I understand generally why banks will lean against consequential loss claims. They will be nervous that those consequential losses could expand unpredictably. It is also easy for a business to think, “If only we had had this money, we could have done that,” and make assumptions that things would have gone well and have an optimistic view as to that opportunity. There are also cases where people take advantage, as we have seen with BP, particularly in respect of claims in the United States, but we could not be further from that situation here, and Barclays in particular has been able to revise down its provision, not least because it seems that it is paying very little, if anything, in the way of consequential loss claims.

The particulars of this business are unique. In 1990 David Taylor managed to find and purchase 30 acres of derelict riverfront boatyard adjoining Cuxton. He took quite some risk in doing that, and he has had to go through quite a lot of difficulties in planning arrangements and in getting the right permissions to develop his business, and now that of his son. At one point this company was employing 16 or 17 people, but there are now just seven people. Some £25,000 annually of interest has been taken out of what would otherwise be cash available to that firm—an amount that could service a loan upwards of £250,000. The absence of that capital, and the inability to go to another bank while this swap was in action and was being disputed, has prevented that business from growing in very serious ways. Usually there is a relatively competitive market in terms of opportunities, and if money is available we would expect other people to come in and, as it were, compete away the returns available. In this case, however, the 30 acres of prime riverside frontage to have dry docks, to store boats and to maintain and develop those boats is an extraordinary resource, because since 1990 the development of the property market particularly along the banks of the Thames has been such that there is no longer the previous great surplus of wharves and places to have dry docks and to look after boats in that way. Any money available to the owners of those sites to redevelop has largely gone on residential use of those river frontage areas, as huge amounts of money can often be made from residential development. That has meant that such sites have become almost unavailable along the Thames. To find a facility of comparable size to the 25 to 30 acres of available land that Port Medway Marina Ltd has in my constituency, we would have to go almost around East Anglia or all the way down to Southampton. The Taylors therefore have a huge business opportunity there, but it is being stopped, or very significantly hindered and slowed down, in its development by the mis-selling of this loan and the unavailability of finance, specifically in respect of a 65-tonne boat hoist that has been bought but which cannot be installed without a new dry dock, so the company only has a 25-tonne hoist. That difference is absolutely huge for a company of this sort, and it is the bankers who are responsible for the non-availability of the finance to develop that and the huge business opportunities that would otherwise have been available to this company.

I would like to see this company continue and thrive. With finance, I believe it can. Barclays has admitted, I believe—or it is not disputed—that this was mis-sold as a swap. The relationship manager said it was a condition of the loan when it was not, and that manager has now left the company. I ask that bank to have a sensible look at this scheme and to allow this business in my constituency to grow and thrive in the way that it deserves to.

Autumn Statement

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting next to me, said, “Oh, really”. I said that the sovereign wealth fund should be for across the north of England so that I did not get into any trans-Pennine, war of the roses dispute.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that many of the immediate opportunities are in Lancashire, in or near the area he represents. I have spoken to him about what more we can do to make sure that local communities see the benefit of the jobs, investment and resources that we will get as a result of this important energy exploration and extraction. Of course, we now have the new college in the area—that has just been announced—so local people will have the right skills to get those jobs.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

If the economy is doing as well as the Chancellor says, why are we borrowing more than France, Italy, Spain and Greece?

[Mr Osborne]

The reason is that we started with a 10.5% budget deficit, which we have had to reduce. Interestingly, the International Monetary Fund assesses that we have had the longest and most sustained reduction in the structural deficit, and that we are forecast to have the strongest reduction in the headline and the structural deficit in the future. The IMF assessment of how we have done shows that we are restoring economic stability to this country.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

We have to make these cuts because the expenditure has been unmanaged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) says, for the first time there will be more within the supposed “annually managed” category than the amount that is subject to departmental expenditure limits. The measure that the Chancellor has brought before us today will mean that for the first time this £120 billion of public spending will be properly managed annually by the Treasury and will be subject annually to a vote of this House.

Imagine the Home Office or the Department for Transport letting it slip out that it was spending £1.5 billion more than previously planned. The first thing a Minister must do if a budget is exceeded is bear down on it, find out why, do something about it, and, if necessary, find another area of the departmental budget where savings can be made. If absolutely necessary, they must go to the Chancellor and see whether they can make a case for a proportion of the strictly limited contingency reserve.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said and at no point during her speech did she think about the other side of the coin: the people who have to pay the bills. They were the people referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and the Chancellor. They have needs and requirements. Many low-paid people have to pay the bills, but she never mentioned them once.

[Mark Reckless]

As we learnt in the Budget, the amount we will spend on benefits for the disabled—as the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), will know well—is £1.5 billion more than was estimated in the autumn statement just three and a half months ago. In the past, we would have just ignored that and borrowed the extra money without even debating it in this House, but at least now we must have a debate.

The OBR expects that that money will be clawed back over the next couple of years—we will spend a similar amount extra next year, but not the following year. If that estimate is not right, however, surely we as MPs, representing the taxpayer and those who benefit from other benefits and from the NHS, must look into that and ask what we can do about it. Many people who are applying for the personal independence payment or employment and support allowance come to my surgeries and I see cases to which I am sympathetic and in which I think a misjudgment has been made in the assessment. The OBR might be right about what the spending will be—I am not saying that we should reduce eligibility for those benefits or that that is where the reductions must fall—but if it continues to increase we must either borrow the extra money, raise taxes, as the Opposition might wish, or find savings elsewhere.

Constituents of mine who, if they were lucky, were getting a 1% wage increase earlier in this Parliament were seeing people on benefits getting increases above 5%. In the five years since 2007, benefit payments increased by 10% relative to increases for those people who were in work. This year, for the first time, we have a 1% limit. Inflation has come down: it is now 1.7% rather than nearly 3%, as it was when we introduced this measure. I do not want to make further reductions to welfare benefits, but if payments to people who are disabled are £1.5 billion more than we thought they would be this year and if that continues to rise, we must make a decision about the priorities and where we want to make savings. Alternatively, should we just have more taxes and more borrowing, as the Opposition would like?

The other important principle of the measure before us is that the Chancellor is returning the control of spending to Parliament. Parliament used to debate the Government estimates in detail, but now the last thing that we debate on estimates day is anything to do with spending. Between the wars, Parliament lost that power and since then we have seen an explosion in state spending. We are spending £120 billion. It would be good news if spending came in below that, and the Treasury would not have to come to us for permission to spend more taxpayers’ money. But if spending is more than 2% above the projected figure there ought to be a debate and a vote in this House about whether to accept that.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely elegant point. Is it not true that the Labour party’s positioning of itself as the welfare party has betrayed those who depend on the welfare system in two ways? First, it has meant that money required for those most in need is spent on those who are not most in need and, secondly, it has entrenched and locked hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable families into dependency on welfare, which is the great tragedy of the welfare state that the Opposition have supported.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend is completely right. The Labour party used to be the workers’ party, but it has become the welfare party. It has become the defender of the public sector. When Parliament discussed these matters 90 years ago and before, the radicals were those who were trying to control Government spending and who were standing up for the taxpayers—the people in their constituencies—and trying to reduce the amount of money that Ministers were spending on their behalf. Today, all we see from the Labour party is a defence of welfare spending and of whatever is paid in the public sector while our constituents, who have to pay for all that and who are often on very low incomes, are ignored. For the first time, we are considering the comparison between what we are spending on welfare and what we need to do with that money elsewhere.

I wholeheartedly support this House’s having its say on spending. There is an excellent precedent for such a debate in Parliament. The Government came to the House with a motion saying that we should freeze spending within the European Union, but the House looked at the motion, decided that that was not good enough and that we wanted a cut. We voted for one, and the Government went out and delivered it. Parliament took control of spending.

Previously, spending in the welfare area covered by the £120 billion has gone up and up, and people have said, “Oh well, there is a problem and we will have to spend more on these disabled claimants, but we are sympathetic to them so that is fine. We will just borrow the extra money.” For the first time, we will be forced into making a decision about what we can do to get proper control of public spending, represent our constituents and stand up for the taxpayer. Not only has the Chancellor brought in the fiscal watchdog and reformed pensions, but, in this third area, he will be remembered for restoring control of spending to Parliament.

Autumn Statement

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I praise the work that citizens advice bureaux do across the country, and I know that the hon. Lady was previously connected with them, but cutting income tax for the low-paid and taking them out of income tax is a real help, as is the freeze in fuel duty, rail fares and the like. As I say, in the end, the biggest thing we can do for this country is deal with our debts and get people into work. In her constituency, unemployment is down 26% and youth unemployment is down 40%. [Interruption.] Labour MPs shake their heads. I thought it used to be the party of full employment, but now it cannot welcome falls in unemployment.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Long before the last election, my right hon. Friend raised the unfairness of overseas residents buying the most expensive London properties without paying capital gains tax. Is he surprised that it has been left to him to close those loopholes and ensure that overseas residents pay both capital gains tax and proper stamp duty?

[Mr Osborne]

I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue. When I announced this measure in the autumn statement, one member of the Opposition Front-Bench team said, “Why aren’t you doing it sooner?”. Labour had 13 years to make this tax change, and the man who actually designed the tax policies and wrote the statements is the shadow Chancellor. I find it extraordinary that, whether it is dealing with this unfairness in capital gains tax or the general unfairness where they boasted that people in the City were paying lower tax rates than people who cleaned for them, we have stepped in to deal with the unfairness.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

It is possible for our influence to go beyond our voting weight, just as there are Members of this House—I might include my hon. Friend in this—whose influence goes beyond their proportional representation in this place. I hope he agrees with that.

It is important to maintain momentum on bilateral EU free trade agreements. Ninety per cent of global growth will come from outside Europe after 2015, so the EU needs an outward-looking trade agenda. A free trade agreement with the United States of America is, and must be, a major opportunity that should be pursued with all vigour. It is estimated that EU free trade agreements that are currently under way or in the pipeline could add £200 billion to EU GDP and create 2 million jobs across the EU. We welcome the European Commission’s stated commitment to bringing forward concrete proposals to reduce regulatory barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises. That is long overdue and we look forward to seeing those proposals in June.

It is estimated that removing all barriers in the single market would increase UK GDP by about 7%, while prices could fall by 5% due to increased competition. The single market already adds €600 billion a year to the EU’s economy. Further progress is possible. Ambitious implementation of the services directive by all member states could result in increased national incomes. Service liberalisation would be particularly beneficial to the UK, as services are an area of enormous comparative advantage, as we know, and the UK has had a trade surplus with the EU in services since 2005.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The Financial Secretary cites a number of reports that credit apparently enormously large gains to the single market and, potentially, other trade arrangements. May I ask him to look at the original reports with a certain scepticism? When I used to work with him, I think he would have been disappointed if I had done my analyses in the same slapdash way.

[Greg Clark]

One of the reasons why I was pleased to employ my hon. Friend was his forensic and questioning eye. He is absolutely right that when we look closely at the measures and their estimated impact, we should make our own assessment. However, I think that all of us, including my hon. Friend, would agree that a genuine single market in, for example, energy—an area in which he and I have an interest—could help to increase competition in the EU. As we know, competition is one way we can drive efficiency, which is very much in the interests of all citizens in this country and across the EU.

In addition to structural reforms involving each EU member state and the co-ordination of free trade policies at the EU level, we need reforms in the way the EU works. In his speech of 23 January, the Prime Minister proposed certain principles for reform. He said that the EU had to improve its competitiveness, to become a more flexible organisation, to ensure that its rules were fair for all members and to allow power to flow from the EU to its members and not just the other way around. He also said that the EU had to improve its democratic accountability and to re-engage with voters across Europe. It is national Parliaments that provide the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU. The fact that this debate tonight is being held at the behest of the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee serves only to underline that important fact.

Those objectives are complicated by the presence in the EU of the eurozone. Britain has an immediate interest in the stability of the single currency, and we need to be aware of the changes that a more tightly integrated euro area will bring to the EU’s present structure. It is important that we ensure that the EU continues to work for all its members, and that the interests of those outside the single currency should be acknowledged and, more specifically, protected. In particular, it should be understood that whatever binding surveillance eurozone members might agree on, Britain will not be bound by it.

As I said earlier, the convergence programme is, by its very nature, something that harks back to the days when it was simply assumed that Britain was on a one-way route to monetary union across the EU. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has suggested, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but let us not forget that, at that time, he and many Conservative Members had the foresight to see any such convergence as the wishful thinking that it was—and, to a certain extent, still is. Those Members included my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), now the Foreign Secretary. As the newly elected leader of the Conservative party in 1997, he had this to say about the idea of dragging Britain into the single currency:

“What are the chances that we will converge in the near future? What are the chances we will converge for ever, without ever diverging again? And would it be wise to run our economy so as to make it converge rather than prosper in its own right?”

Those were wise words, and I look forward to hearing many more in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Well, this does feel like rather an anachronism, but we have legal obligations under those treaties. No doubt there will be revisions, and some of the reporting requirements ought to be considered afresh, but my principal concern is whether it is right for the House to endorse the Red Book as a true and accurate reflection of what is happening in the UK economy. In my view, the Government must be kidding if they are saying that the Red Book reflects the facts. It is more like a work of fiction. They have been spinning furiously as the key indicators have taken a turn for the worse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said. In fact, the Red Book is little more than a vanity exercise cloaked in an official publication. It revolves entirely around the Chancellor’s need to retro-justify his failing economic ideology.

I invite hon. Members to look seriously—and without cracking up—at page 1 of the Red Book, and to ask themselves genuinely and dispassionately whether it is a true reflection of what is happening in the UK economy. The first line states:

“The Government’s objective is to…build…a fairer society”.

Well, tell that to those who are struggling with the new bedroom tax while they watch the great and good millionaires of this country rake in a typical £100,000 tax cut, thanks to the reduction in the 50p rate of income tax for those earning more than £150,000. So much for a fairer society!

Here is another one:

“The Government’s plan…is based on…fiscal responsibility to deal with our debts with a credible debt reduction plan”.

That is in total contradiction with the first page of the Office for Budget Responsibility report, which states plainly that the deficit reduction plan has “stalled”. That is the word that the OBR uses. No one would think from reading the Budget Red Book that the Government had presided over an increase in the national debt of 38% during their three years in office.

[Mark Reckless]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the solution is to borrow more?

[Chris Leslie]

I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are already borrowing more. We shall see the borrowing figures tomorrow, and we shall see what happens to their strategy. The deficit reduction plan has gone. It has vanished. It has totally disappeared. It is a dead plan. It is no more. It is deceased. It is incumbent on Government Members to realise that they need a different strategy for deficit reduction; they need one that will succeed.

I want to return to the first page of the Red Book, which we are asked to approve as a true reflection of the state of our economy. It states that

“the Government is committed to keeping costs down for families to help with the cost of living”.

Tell that to the typical household now being asked to pay an extra £891. People are worse off because of the measures taken since 2010—not to mention the shrinking real wages relative to rapid price rises. How about the following quote for masterly understatement? It states at the foot of the page that we are experiencing

“a more subdued and uneven recovery than expected”.

Our economy shrank in the last three months of 2012, and we will see whether we are recovering when we see the growth figures for the current quarter on Thursday. How on earth could that be viewed as a recovery? This is an exceptionally disingenuous document. Reading page 1 of the Red Book is enough to make any dispassionate observer double-take their grip on the tough realities of the world around them.

We should therefore dwell for a moment on the real-world evidence. A week is certainly a long time in the Chancellor’s political lifetime—what a week has just passed. The unemployment figures were exceptionally grim. The Bank of England’s latest release on trends in lending showed that, measured annually, the amount of lending to UK businesses from banks and building societies fell in the three months to February. The Bank of England said that lending to businesses fell by £5 billion during those three months and that the decline was broad based across all sectors. So much for funding for lending.

Way before we got to the Budget, we suggested that the Chancellor should take steps to reform the funding for lending programme, but he did not do so in the Budget. It should not take an intervention from the International Monetary Fund to prick up the Chancellor’s ears and make him realise that he needs to do something about funding for lending. Ministers will have to be far more adept and fleet of foot than that.

The Treasury Select Committee said last week that it was by no means clear that the cornerstone of the Budget—the Help to Buy housing scheme—would benefit first-time buyers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North alluded to earlier, the academic methodology underpinning the key paper written by the Chancellor’s favourite economic theorists—Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff—was discredited when a graduate student found a fatal flaw in their excel spreadsheets that supposedly underpinned the whole extreme austerity course advocated by the Treasury.

Despite the usual diplomatic finesse employed by the IMF towards its affiliating member states, its chief economist Olivier Blanchard said that the Chancellor was “playing with fire”. A year ago, the IMF was forecasting growth of 2% this year, but it is now expecting growth of just 0.7%. It was a serious mistake for the Chancellor to ignore the IMF’s calls for a reassessment of fiscal policy in the Budget, and it is right to repeat its warnings. Even Christine Lagarde, not known for departing from the Chancellor’s opinions on these matters, said that the pace of fiscal consolidation

“has to be adjusted depending on the circumstances and given the weak growth that we have observed lately because of reduced demand addressed to the economy”

and that

“now might be the time to consider”

doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This is an extremely important debate, but I am sorry to have to say that the Government did their best to prevent it from being held on the Floor of the House. Speaking as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I feel that that must be put on the record. It was very unfortunate, to say the least, and no doubt the Committee will consider it when we meet next Wednesday.

Having said that, I must add that this is an opportunity to put in context the tributes that should be, and indeed have been, paid not just to Margaret Thatcher but to Alan Walters and all who took part in the Maastricht rebellion, and also to those who have fought so tenaciously throughout the accretion of these treaties, from the early days until the present time. I use that collective term because many new Members who are in the Chamber now—notably my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), for St Albans (Mrs Main), for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—are apprised of the seriousness of the situation, as indeed we were at that time.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 was passed 20 years ago as a result of a very tense debate about these questions. In the last 20 months, there have been at least 20 economic summits in an attempt to unravel the dysfunctional nature of the economic requirements with which we are having to comply, in the context of the convergence criteria and as set out in papers that have been placed before the House. I imagine that many Members have not had an opportunity to read those papers, but they have been placed in the Vote Office for the benefit of those who wish to do so.

While we are dealing with the consequences of the Maastricht treaty, I want to take the opportunity to put on record a correction to a book by the former Chief Whip in the House of Commons, Lord Renton. After making some fairly disobliging remarks about certain Members—I need not ignore the fact that I was one of those of whom he did not particularly approve—he wrote that

“the vehicle for their resistance was the parliamentary approval for the Treaty of Maastricht.”

He went on to observe, astonishingly,

“Although this had been signed by their heroine, Margaret Thatcher, they revelled in defying three-line whips in order to vote against its enactment into British law”.

That is complete and total arrant nonsense. Margaret Thatcher did not sign the Maastricht treaty, although she certainly became a patron of the Maastricht referendum campaign, which I organised along with Bryan Gould and a Liberal Democrat Member who represents one of the Devon seats. However, the present Prime Minister himself has now said that there should have been a referendum on that treaty, and I believe that, had there been one, we would have won. The father of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) was one of the leading campaigners in the House of Lords for the referral of the treaty to a referendum, but his campaign was defeated by a monstrous whipping operation, with the result that we are where we are.

There was a complete refusal to listen to what was said at the time, and there has been a complete refusal to listen to what has been said ever since. I fear that the coalition is still not listening, although it is now clear as crystal that our predictions were right and that riots, massive unemployment, the rise of the far right and the failure of the system are destroying not only the European economy but Britain’s prospects for growth. I shall say more about growth in a moment, because it is fundamental to the issue that we are discussing.

[Mark Reckless]

As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Prime Minister now says that there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. Does he recall that the Prime Minister was at the time a special adviser to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Margaret Thatcher and who refused to sign the treaty? A junior Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), had to go and do it instead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That really is not part of the subject of the debate. We are not having a history lesson on how we came to approve section 5, or on the players in that event; we are considering the documentation that the Government have asked us to approve this evening in connection with section 5, and I should be grateful if all Members would remain in order. I feel sure that Mr Cash is going to come to the point now, in the context of that documentation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As far as contributions to the state pension are concerned, the change will have no effect whatsoever on any of those who opt out. The system will not be affected by the change and the hon. Lady can be assured that that is not an issue. I also point out that all households affected by the high income charge on child benefit are in the top 15% to 20% in terms of earnings. It is right for the Government to take some difficult decisions to reduce the deficit.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

House building approvals are up by two thirds. Does that reflect the success of the Government’s funding for lending schemes, the Financial Secretary’s successful planning reforms, or the sustained period of record low interest rates?

[Greg Clark]

All of the above.

Tax Fairness

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million, to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes, should be part of a fair tax system; and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for such a tax at the earliest opportunity.

Let us consider the contrast that now exists as a result of Government decisions. Those who are on low and middle incomes—that is, the vast majority of the British public—have seen their tax credits cut, their child benefits squeezed, their cost of living rise as a result of higher VAT and their wages fall in real terms. However, the richest 1%, including the lucky few who earn £1 million a year, will see an average tax cut of £100,000 in four weeks’ time, and banking executives will not have to pay that annoying bonus tax, all thanks to the Chancellor’s generosity. This is a tale of two societies, with hard-working earners on low and middle incomes paying for the Government’s failure to get the economy growing while the richest elite are being rewarded by the Chancellor with a tax cut worth nearly four times the average annual salary.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Is it not also a tale of two sides of the House? Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his speech today has proved so popular with Labour Members?

[Hon. Members]

Where are they?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If 1 million more people are in work but there is zero growth—in other words, there has been no overall increase in production—that implies that people who had been in full-time jobs are now in part-time jobs and that aggregate production has not increased, which is a complete failure. It is symptomatic of Tory Britain, with people scratching around for anything they can find in difficult times.

There has been some discussion of the 50p rate of tax. As I have mentioned, the reason the Treasury thinks it would not make any money from a 50p rate is that it knows that millionaires can move money between tax years, which is precisely what they have done. They knew that their Tory mates would reduce the top rate of tax the next year and so simply shifted their income to that year. The point that I had wanted to make in another intervention—I appreciate that two were taken—relates to the idea that the 50p rate does not work and is therefore dead. However, people earning between £32,000 and £42,000 already pay 52% marginal tax—12% for national insurance and 40% for income tax—but of course no one talks about that. How does that change their behaviour, and why is it fair that they pay the higher rate while people on £150,000 do not because they have accountants? It is ridiculous.

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene? Perhaps he earns £150,000; I do not know.

[Mark Reckless]

I want to develop the hon. Gentleman’s point. We currently have a tax band between £100,000 and £115,000 in which people face a marginal tax rate of 62%, with the personal allowance and national insurance. Is he suggesting that that is somehow justifiable, or more justifiable than the top rate tax he is suggesting for those earning more than £150,000?

[Geraint Davies]

I am simply saying that those with the broadest shoulders should take the greatest weight, that there is a strong case for a 50p rate of tax and that some people already pay the 50p rate. I am not saying that they should pay that. Our tax system is not very fair, and I will move on to that later.

The problem we face is that there is no growth in our economy because there is no consumer demand, and although the deficit—the rate at which the debt is increasing —has gone down by 25%, as we are constantly reminded, the overall debt continues to rise to unprecedented levels. We are almost back to a pre-1997 situation in which we are paying people to stay on the dole and, at the same time, cutting services. That is the old Tory vicious cycle. We want to get back to Labour’s virtuous cycle, with people in jobs and paying tax and with unprecedented growth.

The other point that is always made is that the banks were unregulated and that is why everything went wrong. The reality is that the Financial Services Authority—I know that it has had a bad name—was introduced in the teeth of opposition from the Tories, who said that there was too much regulation already. Then, when the banks started going bust, the Labour Government said that we had better nationalise them so that people could still get money out at the hole in the wall. The Tories said, “No, let them fall.” That would have been a complete catastrophe. So in other words, the previous Labour Government did a very good job. We now have a situation in which, instead of confronting the deficit, which is what we should be doing, the Government have the wrong balance between growth and cuts, and within the cuts there is the wrong balance—80% cuts and 20% tax.

As for the claim that we are all in this together, we are now in a situation in which the poor are paying the most. I mentioned in a brief intervention—I also raised this in Prime Minister’s questions—a man who came to see me who had £20 a week, after utility bills, for food and clothing. He now faces a further hit of about £7 a week for having an empty bedroom. How will he survive on £2 a day? Allegedly, that change will save the Government about half a billion pounds, but of course it will not, because obviously people will move to the private sector, where rents are higher, and there will be empty houses in the public sector because councils will be forced to evict people. It makes no economic sense at all. However, if it did raise half a billion pounds, which is about one twentieth of what the Chancellor is investing in the tax thresholds, the hit to the very poorest will be similar to the gain to a very large number of people, and that will cost a great deal of money.

The point I am trying to make is that what will probably result in no savings will inflict enormous hardship on the most vulnerable, which is unnecessary and wrong. Those people, because they are very poor, have no option but to spend all their money locally, which helps to boost growth. If that money is redistributed from the very poorest to the squeezed middle, which is obviously good for votes—a callous and cynical manoeuvre in difficult economic times—then clearly that is not in favour of growth either. In so far as it will push money right up the income scale to the millionaires who live in mansions—the people we have been talking about—what will they do with the extra money the Government will have bunged to them? The threshold has gone up, so those at the top will also gain as a result. They will hide it away offshore.

There are therefore difficult issues to confront. We need to invest in our productive economy, but what is a fair way to do that in a—dare I say it—one nation way? Britain wants a one nation future that works and a future that cares, and the question for us all in difficult times must be how we deliver that. How do we invest, as I mentioned during Treasury questions, in super-connectivity for the city of Swansea? We do it on the back of investment in universities, electrified rail and communications and by marketing city regions, and indeed Britain, for inward investment. Those are all important. The Minister mentioned some of the issues about marginal corporate taxation, but the research tends to show that the major inward investment drivers are around research and development skills and access to markets, and we are well positioned on that.

On corporate taxation, there is a lot to be said—to be fair to the Minister, he mentioned this—for the idea of taxing economic activity where it occurs, whether we are talking about Google, Amazon or other companies. Amazon is local to my constituency and provides valuable jobs, but it needs to be fair and there needs to be a level playing field. If people are buying on Amazon rather than at a local shop, it is important that the local shop knows that they are all playing the same game.

Let us take the example of Apple phones and all the technology in the phone I am holding in my hand. The internet was invented here, and the other stuff, such as touch-screen and voice-activated technology, was invented in the national institute of science in California. So Apple is being taken to court by California for $26 billion because it does not pay any tax. Apple has taken innovation from the public sector, repackaged it, branded it, manufactured it overseas and got it taxed somewhere else. A big issue is that global conglomerates need to be brought to account and to pay their contribution to the public services where people are consuming their products.

Some of these people obviously live in mansions. The issue about the mansion tax, of course, is that it is part of a more general review of council tax, as other Members have mentioned, which has not been uprated. There needs to be a progressive system of taxation. Obviously the mansion tax, which is a Liberal Democrat proposal, had not been completely thought out in all its intricacies, but it is a direction of travel. If someone lives in a £2 million house, it is not that difficult to find ways of getting income out of it. It can be rented out and, with the rental income, the owner could have a palatial place in south Wales and a profit, so they could sit by the sea and enjoy themselves. For those people who are stuck in £2 million cupboards in London, allegedly, and we feel sorry for them, there are ways of releasing equity, as they could be rented out and people will pay the market rate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), who ingeniously addressed the topics of both of this afternoon’s debates and some even broader topics.

I will confine my remarks to the taxation of high-value property. The motion refers to a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million. A serious problem with the motion is that the Government have already brought in a range of measures to increase the incidence of tax on the owners of properties worth more than £2 million. No definition of “mansion tax” per se is provided in the motion.

The Leader of the Opposition hypothecated the revenues that would purportedly be raised by the mansion tax to reintroduce the 10% rate of tax, which was abolished by the previous Government. The cost of that would be some £7.3 billion. Research that was published recently shows that to raise that amount of money, a so-called mansion tax would have to be introduced not on properties worth more than £2 million, but on properties worth more than £415,000. It may be that the Opposition wish to tax people in that class of income more. Perhaps they think that they are rich, are benefiting too much and need to pay more to the Government. I look forward to their fighting the next election on that basis.

Meanwhile, our coalition partners have said that there should be a mansion tax that applies only to residential property worth more than £2 million. However, we have also heard from the Liberal Democrats—I am not sure whether it came from the federal policy committee or quite how they develop these policies—that it would apply not just to mansions above £2 million, but to property generally above £2 million. It is therefore just as important for somebody who has 10 flats worth £200,000 each to pay the extra tax as somebody who has a so-called mansion worth £2 million. Apparently, they are going to go further and inspect the contents of jewellery boxes and levy taxes on those as well.

[Stephen Williams]

My hon. Friend is setting various hares flying across the field. Of course, I am not in favour of hunting, but those hares need to be stopped from running. The jewellery tax is complete nonsense. As I have said many times on the record, we are not in favour of a net wealth tax that allows HMRC to look beyond people’s front doors. On the property portfolio, if somebody owned 10 flats, the nine that they did not live in would probably be attracting rental income and so would already be taxed. A mansion tax would apply to somebody’s principal residence if it was worth more than £2 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He speaks about a person’s “principal residence”, so I assume that he would allow them to remain exempt from capital gains tax, notwithstanding the £2 million-plus property that they live in.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

If it is somebody’s principal residence that will be taxed if it is worth more than £2 million, does my hon. Friend think that the threshold will be £4 million for husbands and wives who are living together in a home?

[Mark Reckless]

Who can tell with these things? My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) has given assurances, but the policy proposals that I cited have been submitted to the federal policy committee of his party. It is difficult as an outsider to judge how formal and important that is, but there are clearly Liberal Democrats who are talking about a broader tax on wealth and capital, including on jewellery. I think that would be a mistake.

It is unfortunate that the Opposition with this motion and our friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches have become so focused on the arbitrary sum of £2 million. The Government are doing very good things in raising tax from people who own high-value properties but have not been paying their fair share of tax. The Opposition and the Liberal Democrats seem to want to confine their efforts to rein in tax avoidance to those who own houses worth more than £2 million. I and my Conservative colleagues do not understand why we should be concerned about tax avoidance just when a person’s house is worth more than £2 million.

It is hugely welcome that the Government are bringing in the anti-avoidance measure of a 15% tax when homes that are worth more than £2 million are enveloped into a company, which is generally done for the purposes of tax avoidance. However, I am not entirely clear why we are doing that only for homes worth more than £2 million, except for the fact that that is the arbitrary number that has been chosen by the Liberal Democrats for such taxation. [Interruption.] The Opposition are calling out, but they did nothing about this matter for 13 years. It is a huge improvement that this Government are dealing with tax avoidance using properties worth more than £2 million.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Reckless]

If I may, I will continue for a while.

There have been consultation papers and draft legislation on how the anti-avoidance measure will be introduced. There will be self-assessment, so there will be no need for the great costs of revaluing properties. I am sure that the Minister is keen to raise more money, so will he say whether there is any hope that the Government will take action against people who avoid the 5% tax on a property that is worth between £1 million and £2 million by putting it into a company?

Perhaps the Minister will assist me on another point. Where people have enveloped houses into a company there will be an annual charge of between 0.3% and 0.7% of the property’s value, which is welcome. Many of the papers have suggested that the purpose of that is to encourage people—or in this case companies—to de-envelope their properties, and the measure will come in only after 1 April 2013. Do the Government expect stamp duty to be paid on those de-enveloping transactions, so that if the property’s value is more than £2 million there will be a 7% charge, or do they expect the sale to be from a controlled company to the person controlling that company, perhaps at a nominal rate that will not attract stamp duty, in order to recoup some of the avoidance they may have made over previous years? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.

As well as dealing with tax avoidance on properties under £2 million, I would also like non-residents to make a fairer contribution. I was first alerted to the issue by the Chancellor when in opposition. He said that he found the situation extraordinary, and there was a great deal of resentment when he explained how it worked and about the exemption from capital gains tax for non-residents. I do not understand why a resident of this country must pay capital gains tax on the sale of their property—unless it is their principal residence—yet a non-resident is exempt from that tax.

A huge flow of overseas money has come to this country as people fear the break-up of the eurozone and there is a rush to safety, and much of that has gone into property in central London. We say to people who own those homes, “As long as you don’t live there and you stay overseas, we will give you a tax break and you won’t have to pay capital gains tax.” When we go to Mayfair or parts of Belgravia, it sometimes feels as if not many people are about. We are subsidising and giving a tax break to people as long as they do not live in this country, and I have never understood the purpose of that.

Given that the Labour party did nothing about that situation for 13 years, I was pleased that the Budget and Finance Bill contained measures to extend stamp duty to at least some overseas residents. The Government consultation states:

“The Government announced in the Budget that it will extend the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) regime from April 2013 to gains on the disposal of UK residential property by non-resident non-natural persons, such as companies. The measure creates a more equal treatment in the CGT regime between UK residents and non-residents, and brings the UK’s tax policy in line with that of other countries, many of whom already tax non-residents’ gains.”

If we want an equal regime between UK residents and non-residents, why are we extending CGT only to non-resident, non-natural persons—basically companies? Surely we should also extend it to natural persons who are resident overseas. Other countries are doing that; India and China have made moves in that direction, so why not us? Some industrialised countries do not do it, but none of those have such a pool of property that acts as a free piggy bank for overseas residents. We keep their wealth and capital completely secure in central London yet they pay no capital gains tax on it. Could we perhaps consider going further in that area and look at extending capital gains tax to overseas non-residents who are natural persons, rather than concentrating simply on companies?

I welcome what the Government are doing. The Liberal Democrats refer to a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million, but the Government are already doing substantial work to obtain a more proper tax take from such properties and we could look at whether that could go further. Obviously, I do not expect answers about what will be in the forthcoming Budget, but in some areas higher tax would be a good thing. I am not generally in favour of that, but where people avoid tax by putting houses into companies, even if they are worth less than £2 million, we should try to get the proper tax. Where overseas residents are doing nicely by securing capital in the UK but paying very little for the privilege, by taxing the capital gains they make on later sales of those houses it would be welcome to see them paying their share and doing a little to help us close the deficit, which, of course, is the great uniting purpose of the coalition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Absolutely. I remember writing papers about the massive increase in inequality that occurred subsequently, during the 1980s, when there were big tax cuts for the rich along with rapidly rising unemployment. That resulted in the inequality for which we have not really been compensated since.

[Mark Reckless]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken of persuading Labour Front Benchers to adopt his policy on the 10p tax rate. Does he have similar hopes in respect of the 98% rate?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

No, no. I live in the real world, and I suspect that even my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will not start considering 98% marginal tax rates.

George Bernard Shaw, a witty man but a socialist, who was paying 98%, said, “I consider myself to be a tax collector for the Government, in return for which I receive a 2% premium.” I thought that that was one way of putting it. Shaw was, as I said, a socialist, who no doubt accepted that wealthy people such as himself should pay substantially more than the poor.

I realise that we will not return to that rate, but I will say that during a Budget debate in the last Parliament, on a cold Thursday afternoon when it was raining and there were about six people in the Chamber, I suggested that we could consider a 50% rate for those on £60,000 a year—this was then!—a 60% rate for those on £100,000, and a 70% rate for those on £200,000. That would have taken us nowhere near where we had been in the 1970s, but it would have been a substantial change from where we were then.

I did not get much of a reaction in the Chamber, but the Deputy Speaker spoke to me privately afterwards. I am giving away no secrets, because she is no longer a Member of Parliament. She said, “I do so agree with you. Why do the Government not just do as you say?” Well, if only; but I had said what I thought, and I thought that would be a reasonable move. I suggested the 50% rate for those on £60,000 because at least it would mean Members of Parliament paying a tiny bit extra on the top part of their income. I thought that was right then, and I still think it is right.