Finance (No. 2) Bill
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
The OBR is still bedding in. It has had a difficult time because on every autumn statement and Budget it has had to downgrade and revise its forecasts, upgrading the forecast for the deficit along the way, so one has to feel slightly sorry for it. There were some signs that its chairman was keen to chastise the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for overstating what was happening to public finances, so we wish it well for the future.
New clause 5 concerns the introduction of a 10p starting rate of income tax, funded by a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million, a policy that used to be advocated by the Liberal Democrat—
Chris Leslie
Apparently, it is still advocated by the Liberal Democrat, but Liberal Democrats tend to have a habit of voting against it whenever the opportunity presents itself. Those on low incomes have had their tax credits cut, their child benefit has been affected, and their wages and living standards have fallen, but millionaires on average benefit from a £100,000 tax cut. Surely it is time to help lower and middle-income households with an extra level of tax support, directed from revenues raised from a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million.
Alison Seabeck
That is a very interesting comment, is it not? In quoting it, my hon. Friend makes the point very clearly.
House building is falling, rents are rising, home ownership is becoming a harder goal for young families to achieve, and homelessness has risen. That, frankly, is not a record to write home about. This Budget measure, first, needs to be fully explained; secondly, needs to be fully scrutinised, which is why the new clause is important; and thirdly, shows that the Government have got their priorities wrong, because they need to be building more homes.
Stephen Williams
Thank you for calling me, Mr Hoyle. I am being called rather sooner than I imagined; indeed, I did not even necessarily imagine that I would be making a speech in full detail, but making use of my House of Commons Library notes I have hastily prepared something, particularly on new clause 5, which is a welcome innovation in many ways.
Andy Sawford
As the hon. Gentleman is not quite prepared to speak at the moment, perhaps I could help to give him some material for his response to the new clauses. Will he enlighten us on whether the Liberal Democrats might take this opportunity to support us in pushing forward a mansion tax, given that they did not do so last time?
Stephen Williams
I am happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman, whose intervention falls into the category of a nice try. I think he is referring to the Opposition motion on this issue that we debated five or so weeks ago. The Government amendment to that motion made it crystal clear that, in the context of the coalition, my Conservative Front-Bench colleagues do not support the introduction of a mansion tax in this Parliament; indeed, it is not in the coalition agreement because we could not agree on it at that point. However, the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition does believe that a mansion tax should be introduced. We are happy to do the workings on it and happy to espouse it at every opportunity. It will be in our manifesto at the next general election, and subject to what happens in that election, when I am sure that negotiations may well take place again, perhaps we will have a different outcome. I welcome the fact that the Labour party, which emphatically rejected the principle of a mansion tax in the negotiations in 2010, now seems to be on the way towards conversion to the long-term Liberal Democrat train of thought on this issue.
I also hope that Conservative coalition colleagues might have a conversion between now and 2015. Some of them—in fact, a lot of them; we talk to each other rather more than we used to—whisper in my ear that they wished the Conservative party that embraced this policy. That applies particularly to Conservative MPs from the north of England—north of the line from the Severn to the Wash. Perhaps there are not very many £2 million properties in those constituencies. Nevertheless, a lot of Conservative MPs from outside the south-east of England have privately said to me that they wish the coalition would adopt this principle.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman’s Library notes have been helpful, but I am not quite sure that the journey he is trying to take the Chamber on is relevant to this debate. I am sure that he wants to come back into order with his good Library notes.
Stephen Williams
Thank you, Mr Hoyle. Your advice is always given with good heart and accepted freely.
New clause 5 highlights the Labour party’s conversion to the principle of a mansion tax. I said that the new clause was an innovation. Unfortunately, I am a veteran of Finance Bills. I have obviously insulted my Whips Office on several occasions in the past and keep being put on to Finance Bills as a punishment. I remember from last year’s Bill that, time after time, Opposition new clauses and amendments called for studies of the impact of Government policy, while the Opposition proposed no new policies of their own. Now, finally, after three years, they have suggested a new policy, albeit one pinched from my party, but they are still asking the Treasury to do a study of it—even though it is they, not the Government, who proposed it—because the Labour party cannot be bothered to explain how this new policy that it has suddenly converted itself to will actually work.
The Opposition have not provided any clues as to how their approach might work, even though they have had plenty of opportunities to do so. The hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) referred to the Opposition day debate five weeks ago, and the Labour party has since had plenty of opportunities to flesh out how its version of the mansion tax would work in practice. I had hoped that Labour Members would explain it to us today, but they have not.
New clause 5 does not provide many clues. Let me give those on the Opposition Front Bench a piece of advice: if they want to ask somebody else to assess the impact of their own policy, they really ought to give them a bit more detail to work on. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that those who work at the Treasury are very clever people. Among them are a lot of economists and accountants with good qualifications and excellent degrees from top universities, but the Labour party should not think that it can present them with an almost blank piece of paper, which new clause 5 is, and then expect them to be able to explain within a few months how its policy will work without their having been given the barest of details.
Chris Leslie
This is the thing with the Liberal Democrats—the hon. Gentleman is taking the biscuit. He is whipping himself up into a sense of righteous anger about his own policy, which we want to put on to the statute book. He is picking holes in a policy that he supposedly supported, but which he now cannot bring himself to vote for. Talk about a “push me, pull you” approach from the Liberal Democrats.
Stephen Williams
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have righteous enthusiasm for the policy, because it is a Liberal Democrat policy that I have enthusiastically supported for the past three and a half years. How many weeks has he been an enthusiastic proponent of the mansion tax—10, 12, nine? How many weeks has the Labour party believed in this policy? When did he experience his conversion and accept the wisdom of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who first proposed this policy several months before the 2010 general election? I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of Parliament at that time, but I assure him that his colleagues who were in government rubbished the policy during the general election and the coalition negotiations. For the first three years of this coalition Parliament, Labour did not support it, but now—lo and behold—it does. When was he converted?
Chris Leslie
I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s line of argument. He is attacking us for agreeing with him. We might not have agreed with him several years ago, but now we feel that a mansion tax is necessary to help with a tax break for lower and middle-income families. Is it his argument that we are wrong for supporting a mansion tax? Is that really what he is saying?
Stephen Williams
My argument is straightforward: I do not know what the Labour party’s variant of the mansion tax would be. Moreover, the Labour party does not seem to know, either; otherwise, why on earth would it frame new clause 5 in a way that asks the Treasury to explain how it might work? We are in an extraordinary position. I know what my party’s policy is and am about to tell the hon. Gentleman exactly how a mansion tax would work, but I had hoped to hear from him a little more detail on how his version would work, so that the clever people at the Treasury could produce the study that he wants.
Jack Dromey
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman about something that he did vote for. In a week when the International Monetary Fund has said that the politics of austerity, of which his party is a strong supporter, are clearly not working, does he now regret voting in 2010 for a £4 billion cut in affordable housing investment, which led to a 68% collapse in affordable house-building and threw tens of thousands of building workers out of a job?
Stephen Williams
To answer the hon. Gentleman directly, when the coalition Government came to office they had to make some quick decisions about what was essentially an economic emergency. We were left with a situation in which the last Government were borrowing £1 for every £4 that they were spending. We simply could not go on in that way, so we had to put forward an emergency Budget to gain the confidence of the markets so that people would continue to lend us enough money, on the triple A rating that we had at the time, to keep all Government programmes going. It has been acknowledged by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and, I think, by the Deputy Prime Minister that some of the cuts in capital expenditure that the coalition implemented in its first two years in office perhaps should not have been made, in hindsight. But those cuts in the capital programme were in the last Budget of the last Government and were seen through by this Government. The Government have had the wisdom to say that investment in capital expenditure is a good way of getting growth going in the economy, and that is why we have had the wealth of initiatives that the shadow Minister mentioned earlier, and that is why we have had the new package of proposals to help the housing market.
Jonathan Edwards
I could not get an answer from the Labour Front Bench, but under the Lib Dem proposal would productive agricultural land be included in the estate for mansion tax purposes?
Stephen Williams
The mansion tax, as the name suggests, is a tax on mansions. If a farmhouse on agricultural land was of mansion proportions and, whether it was in Carmarthen or elsewhere, was valued at more than £2 million, it would fall within the scope of a mansion tax, but the agricultural land itself—whether it is in the curtilage of the house or in the wider area of the farm—would not fall within the remit of a mansion tax. However, my party is currently reviewing all its tax policies, including the taxation of land. I do not want to be diverted too far down this route, although it is an issue on which my party has campaigned since the days of Lloyd George, who, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, was probably the most significant Prime Minister of the 20th century. I will say no more on that on this particular day.
I will do my best to help the Labour party with some of the other details of how the Liberal Democrats think that the mansion tax should work. A criticism that is made of the mansion tax is what happens if a pensioner or someone on a low income is living in a house valued at more than £2 million—the so-called asset rich, but income poor. Our answer is straightforward. Someone in those circumstances would defer payment of the tax until the property was sold or their income rose to a level at which they were able to pay it. The most likely scenario is that when the property was sold, the deferred, rolled-up tax liabilities would crystallise and be met out of the proceeds of sale. That is the answer to the asset rich, income poor conundrum.
Another major principle, which might help the Labour party, is that we see the mansion tax as a national tax. There is a debate to be had about what we do with our only existing property tax—the council tax—such as introducing higher bands, but that is a debate for another day. In any event, the council tax is a local tax and we are clear that the mansion tax, as the Liberal Democrats propose it, should be a national tax and form part of the rebalancing of the tax system away from taxes on work and enterprise and on to income from wealth speculation and pollution.
Our principles on the mansion tax are well thought through. Unfortunately, they are not currently shared by enough of our Conservative coalition colleagues. Some share our enthusiasm for a mansion tax, but a majority—certainly ministerial colleagues—do not.
Daniel Kawczynski
The point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) is important, and I was worried that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) could not answer it as clearly as I would like. Farming is an essential part of many estates in Shropshire, and the land and agricultural buildings could tip them over the limit. Shropshire farmers are struggling already with prices from supermarkets, and I am very concerned that, if this tax were introduced under those circumstances, they would be adversely affected.
Stephen Williams
The hon. Gentleman is essentially asking me a variant of the question asked by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). He mentions agricultural buildings. Clearly, a mansion tax is a residential property tax: a tax on the building that the landowner—the farmer, the rich individual or whoever—lives in. It would not include barns, pigsties and the other agricultural buildings to which he referred, even if they have a high value. This would simply be a tax on residential property occupied by a person, not farm animals or anyone else: only the farmhouse itself, or the estate house, would fall into the ambit of a mansion tax.
Coming directly to the problem with new clause 5, the poor clever people in the Treasury simply do not have enough detail to go on to produce this study within six months of the passage of the Bill. This is the opportunity for Labour Front Benchers to answer these questions. They can intervene as many times as they like. [Interruption.] If they are listening, of course. This is an opportunity for them to tell us how the Treasury is going to conduct this study. It really does need some more detail. Is Labour’s variant on the mansion tax a tax on the whole of the £2 million, or is it a tax on the excess of the £2 million? That is completely unclear from any of the speeches made by shadow Ministers, or from the motion. What is the base of the tax?
Chris Leslie
We based our proposal on the Liberal Democrat analysis that a mansion tax could be on the excess of £2 million of value, raising, I think the hon. Gentleman said, £2 billion. That was the basis on which we assume he has some deeper calculations, and I hope he can produce them and share them with the Committee, because it seems a sensible proposal.
Stephen Williams
That is very helpful, because that is the first time we have heard it. It is nice, too, to have an acknowledgement that the Opposition have based whatever they have said so far on statements from my party. I am grateful for that acknowledgement. They have been giving the impression that it is their policy, rather than a magpie policy stolen from the Liberal Democrat policy nest.
Chris Leslie
Given that I have helped to clarify that for the hon. Gentleman, will he now do the right thing and support his own policy in the Division Lobby today? It is very simple.
Stephen Williams
I always strive to do the right things; I am sure all hon. Members do. In the Opposition day debate five or six weeks ago, the Government amendment was so beautifully crafted by the people in the Liberal Democrat Whips Office and the Conservative Whips Office that I was able to vote for it. It said that the Liberal Democrats in the coalition support the principle of a mansion tax, but acknowledged the fact that the Conservatives in the coalition do not. When I voted for that motion, therefore, I was indeed voting to endorse the Liberal Democrat policy of a mansion tax.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I am little perplexed. Is this not the first opportunity for the Liberals to have one of their policies adopted by a major party? It has not happened in the past two and a half years. Should he not be thinking that his best bet is to throw more things the Labour way, because the way things are going, that will be his only chance in the future?
Stephen Williams
The hon. Gentleman, whom I quite like and respect—a feeling not shared universally among his colleagues—tempts me to comment on what might happen in the 2015 general election, on what discussions might take place in its aftermath and on what we might say during it. In 2015, the Liberal Democrats will say that we favour a mansion tax, with all the details we have already put on the table. I intend to publish a short paper that might help—it might do the Treasury’s job for it, making the new clause unnecessary—and which will flesh out what I am talking about. He said that Labour might benefit from taking more policies from the Liberal Democrats. We are all in politics to see our ideals, principles and policies put into practice, and if Labour wants to adopt more Liberal Democrat positions, instead of always saying we are wrong, the public might welcome that more grown-up attempt at consensus politics.
Andy Sawford
I do not understand something about the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. He has justified not voting for his own policy five weeks ago on the basis of an artfully crafted—I think he used those words—Government amendment that allowed the Liberal Democrats to wriggle out of it. But today there is no such amendment. He has challenged, very assertively, the depth of our new clause. If he is so confident in the depth of his own policies, why have the Liberal Democrats not tabled a new clause that he could vote for today?
Stephen Williams
I am happy to reveal now that I will not be supporting new clause 5 in the Division Lobby. That should not surprise the hon. Gentleman. I will not be supporting it, because it is not about the principle of introducing a mansion tax. It asks for a study. It asks the Treasury to do some work. These are busy people, with important work to do, and I do not want to waste their time. We do not want them to waste their time finessing badly thought-through Labour party proposals.
Chris Leslie
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. Is it not the case that only Government Members can table amendments to a Finance Bill that would increase a charge or a tax, and therefore, under the rules of the House, these sorts of reviews are the only device the Opposition have to suggest such a tax change?
Stephen Williams
Of course, that is broadly correct, but I repeat that if the shadow Minister wishes new clause 5 to be implemented, he needs to provide more detail, so that the House can consider whether it is worthy of support. I do not think it worthy of support, because it is so full of holes. It would waste the time of the mandarins in the Treasury to ask them to come forward with a study for which they do not have the right brief. We have not been told at what rate the Labour party wants to set the mansion tax. Here is another opportunity for the Opposition to help the Treasury. Would the rate be 1%, 2%, 2.5%, 3%?
Stephen Williams
The shadow Minister says that it would raise £2 billion. [Hon. Members: “That’s your answer.”] Well, it is an answer, but it is not what is in the new clause. Why does the new clause not say, “Can we have a study from the Treasury on the best way to raise £2 billion?” It would be in order, would it not, Mr Hoyle, to put down a new clause asking the Treasury, “What is the best way to raise £2 billion?” The Labour party wants to raise £2 billion, but wants someone else to tell it how to do it.
Chris Leslie
I confess. Perhaps we could have mentioned the £2 billion. Will the hon. Gentleman forgive us to the point of at least abstaining on the new clause? Perhaps that is a compromise we can offer.
Stephen Williams
Abstention on certain issues is sometimes unfairly pooh-poohed by all parties. I have done it on certain issues. Indeed, abstention on a Bill that has a range of measures, some of which one likes and some of which one does not, is an entirely honourable thing to do, and Members from all parties will have done it. Although we would like to think that the Labour party has had plenty of time to craft a motion that might appeal to Liberal Democrats, I am afraid that in new clause 5 the Opposition have failed. They have again not managed to tell us how they think a mansion tax would work.
Mark Lazarowicz
The hon. Gentleman should stop digging and just say that the reason he will not support new clause 5 is that the Tories will not let him. If his position is that our proposal is not good enough, why does he not give an assurance that Lib Dem Ministers will work to bring forward more detailed proposals? They can do that now; after all, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a Liberal Democrat.
Stephen Williams
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is indeed a Liberal Democrat. I am sure my right hon. Friend has given this policy issue a great deal of careful thought with his advisers and I am sure that if he were standing where I am standing today, he would be making similar points to those that I am making.
There are two parts to new clause 5. As well as calling for a study of—we now know—how to raise £2 billion through a mansion tax, however ill defined the composition of that tax would be, it is also meant to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes, as part of a fair tax system. Again, that is simply not specific enough. We do not know what it means. I am guessing—I can guess, but it would not be fair for those in the Treasury to have to guess how they would have to do such a study—that the purpose is to fund the reintroduction of a 10p rate of income tax. That is my guess, but it is a well informed guess, because the Opposition’s amendment 4 to clause 3, which we will come to tomorrow, suggests that they want to reintroduce a 10p rate of income tax. Again, however, neither that amendment nor new clause 5 gives us any detail for how that would work or, for instance, to what income band it would apply.
Perhaps that it is because the history of the 10p rate is such a miserable memory for Labour Members. I remember the 2007 Budget, which was the last one the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) introduced, when he scrapped the 10p rate of income tax specifically to fund a reduction of the rate of income tax from 22% to 20%. However, the coalition Government have made the principle of the 10p rate of income tax completely redundant, because we have introduced not a 10p rate on people with very low incomes, but a zero rate. I am sure that most of our constituents, whether in Chorley or Bristol West, would much prefer to pay a round tax rate of zero on their low earnings than 10%, which appears to be—although we are not sure—what the Labour party is proposing.
I will therefore not be supporting new clause 5 in the Division Lobby and I would invite all my Liberal Democrat colleagues not to support it either. We are completely clear as a party. We support the introduction of a mansion tax. We are clear about how it should be contrived, on whom it should be levied and how the proceeds from it should be spent. We do not need anybody else to do a study for us—whether the Labour party or the Treasury—to tell us how it might work. It is a great shame that after three years in opposition, at the first opportunity that Labour has taken to say, just tentatively, what it is in favour of—rather than talking about the long list of things that this Government have done that it is against—and just a few weeks after converting to a mansion tax, the Opposition need somebody else to tell them how it will work.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
That was an interesting half hour. It has changed entirely what I had planned to say, such is the power of the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), although I suspect not necessarily in a way he would like.
A review of the workings of the support given to the housing market, which new clause 1 would provide, is necessary to ensure that there are no abuses, but perhaps also to make it clear to all sides that the support being provided is not necessarily for affordable homes, but for the building sector—although it would be better if it were primarily for affordable homes. I think it would be quite useful to have a report on that.
On new clause 5, I was initially intending to ask the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) to provide a little more detail, in the way that the hon. Member for Bristol West did. There are a number of reasons for that, but mainly it is because it might direct the Treasury towards where it might want to look. If, for example, the mansion tax were to be based on council tax banding, then, as we saw in Cardiff where a re-banding took place, it was not necessarily the wealthiest who ended up paying more; 64% of households ended up paying more, which was not a very good outcome. Secondly, if it is paid on the basis of stamp duty land tax, as currently configured, the Exchequer yield would be received only on the sale of the property. Quite clearly, it would not capture all the excess wealth from every property valued at over £2 million. If the mansion tax is to be a new tax, duty or levy, it would have been useful to have it explained.
There may well be a perfectly sensible case to make for a mansion tax, and I thought that that was what the hon. Member for Bristol West was trying to do at the beginning of his speech. As he went on, however, things became rather more confused. I paraphrase, but I think quite accurately, that the hon. Gentleman said that the mansion tax would apply only to a mansion or big house where a person or people lived. If this mansion or big house has one or two rooms that are put out to let, but perhaps not advertised particularly well, it could become a bed and breakfast or a hotel—no longer necessarily remaining a residential property where a person lives.
A number of interventions and discussions took place about farm houses or estates that might breach the threshold. Again, a house where people lived seemed to be the criterion, but one could easily imagine an associated outbuilding converted to house a few chickens, which could change the building from being a residential property. It was interesting to hear that. The hon. Member for Bristol West also referred to the building being the key, even within the curtilage of land on which crops were grown. If an ornamental garden with fruit trees that could be harvested lies inside the curtilage of land but the property is worth £3 million or £4 million, it could, according to the hon. Gentleman, be exempt.
Stewart Hosie
Before I go on, I will happily take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Stephen Williams
I am glad that the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) is phrasing his questions in this way, but I suggest that he direct them to Labour Front Benchers, as it is, after all, their new clause and they have failed to provide the detail. I provided more detail in my speech in order to be helpful. I can answer all the hon. Gentleman’s questions, but I think he should wait for my pamphlet, which I can assure him will knock on the head all those anti-avoidance issues that he raises.
Stewart Hosie
I am almost at a loss for words at the suggestion that anyone could imagine that the world will hold its breath waiting on a Liberal Democrat pamphlet! [Interruption.] I do not want to digress, Mr Hoyle, but that is a mind-boggling proposition.
The confusion in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was far from saying that new clause 5 does not make sense; rather, it confirmed why the new clause was necessary. There are so many flaws, omissions and potential avoidance mechanisms in the Liberal Democrats’ proposals—and we had all assumed that they were worked up to some extent when they went into this miserable Government—that it makes perfect sense for the Treasury to investigate them with all their flaws to determine whether they, or another version of them, are even workable. If the hon. Member for Nottingham East chooses to press new clause 5 to a vote, we will be happy to support it.
Chris Leslie
Given the constrained time available under the Government’s programme motion and the need to move on to other issues, I do not wish to press new clause 1 to a vote, but it is important that we continue to press Ministers for some firmer answers on their Help to Buy scheme, which gives the impression of having been written on the back of an envelope without much thought and without looking in sufficient detail at some of the questions that have arisen in the course of the last few hours, whether with regard to devolved Administrations or second home purchases. Therefore, it is necessary to consider this further during the Bill’s passage.
However, it is important to test the view of the House on new clause 5, particularly given the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who, in an acrobatic display of contortions that tests even the most adept of Liberal Democrats, managed to find a way to oppose a policy that he has supposedly advocated for a long time. Even when we agreed that the policy was the same, raising £2 billion on mansions worth over £2 million and using that money for a tax cut for low and middle-income households, he could not bring himself to abstain on the issue but will vote against the new clause. Therefore, we must test the view of the Committee.
Stephen Williams
New clause 5 calls for a study to be done by the Treasury; it is not about the principle of the policy. The Labour party gets £13 million of public money, Short money, to spend on policy development. Why does it not use some of that money to do its own studies?
Chris Leslie
When the Liberal Democrats are in a hole they really should stop digging. Is the reason for the hon. Gentleman voting against his own policy that he does not want us to look into the very details that he could not answer when challenged on his policy? Of course, if we are to implement a mansion tax we want to make sure that we get it right. We do not want the unthought-through approach taken by the Treasury. We want to make sure that we have taxes that are fair and will be sustainable for the population as a whole. Therefore, it is important that we test the principle of a mansion tax. Lower and middle-income households need that extra help and it is important that we put this question to the test. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Mansion tax
‘The Chancellor shall review the possibility of bringing forward a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million and publish a report, within six months of the passing of this Act, on how the revenue could be used to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes as part of a fair tax system.’.—(Chris Leslie.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Cyprus
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
It was the policy of the Labour party to be committed in principle to joining the euro, and it was our right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks), now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who was the first in the House to say that the Conservative party would campaign against the euro and would not join. As a result of being outside the eurozone, we are not responsible for the arrangements there. We are not part of those negotiations. This is a negotiation between the Government of Cyprus and members of the eurozone.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
The amounts involved are eye-watering as a proportion of the Cypriot economy. We are used to bail-outs involving a haircut for creditors. This is the first time I have ever seen a complete scalping of depositors in order to finance a bail-in. Given that we are outside the various institutions of European decision making, how will the Government safeguard British depositors against future scalpings of this sort?
Tax Fairness
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—indeed, a man from Swansea.
It is a pleasure to speak in favour of the Government amendment tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, because it reflects the realities of coalition Government. The amendment is completely frank about the fact that there are two parties in coalition and that one of them—my party, the Liberal Democrats—supports a mansion tax while the other, the Conservative party, does not. When we conducted our coalition negotiations back in May 2010, the Liberal Democrats were successful in getting many of our policies into the coalition agreement that is now being implemented by the Government, but the mansion tax was resisted by the Conservative party, and that is why the Chancellor has not, thus far, put it forward in his Budgets. We accept that position. Our amendment reflects the realities of the coalition.
Anas Sarwar
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what part of the Opposition motion he cannot support?
Stephen Williams
I will come to that, if the hon. Gentleman is patient.
The key sentences in the Opposition motion and in the coalition Government amendment are those which refer to our support for tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes; we have that in common. However, it rather depends on what one means by that. We know what we mean by it. At the last general election, the Liberal Democrats said that the most effective way to cut taxes for people on low and middle incomes was to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000. That policy was accepted by our coalition partners and it has now been delivered by the coalition Government. I listened carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech just a month ago when, lo and behold, Labour was converted to a mansion tax. The purpose of that conversion was specifically to right the wrong that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) acknowledged was done in 2007—in other words, to reintroduce the 10p rate. That is what Labour’s policy is. The motion is not entirely clear about that, but we have heard the words of the Leader of the Opposition. We know that, yes, they are now in favour of a mansion tax, but specifically to fund a 10p tax rate, which we think will be completely ineffective.
Stephen Williams
Yes, it was. I said it on “Westminster Hour”, on Radio 5, on the “Daily Politics” show, and on other programmes as well. Indeed I could have written it myself. However, I know precisely what I mean by a mansion tax, but we have not heard spelled out in any detail what Labour Members think it should be. I know what I mean by a tax cut for low and middle-income earners, because that is what this Government are doing while we are in office. I am entirely clear what I mean by the text of the motion; the trouble is that it has not been exactly clear what Labour Members mean by their words.
Chris Leslie
We support the proposition that the hon. Gentleman has elucidated about a mansion tax, so, okay, we are clear about what we mean by a mansion tax. When the Business Secretary said that if the motion were
“purely a statement of support for the principle of a mansion tax, I’m sure my colleagues would want to support it”,
was he wrong?
Stephen Williams
The Business Secretary is never wrong; he is a very wise man. I do not see any great difference between what he said and what I said on the record several times yesterday and over the weekend. We know what we mean by a tax for low and middle-income earners. We know what Labour Members mean as well—a reintroduction of the 10p tax rate, and that is why we disagree with them.
Stephen Williams
I cannot give way again because I have now lost all my concessions.
The reason the Business Secretary—our shadow Chancellor, as he then was—proposed a mansion tax towards the end of 2009 was that property wealth in our country is woefully under-taxed. Our only property tax is council tax. In England, the top council tax band, band H, is twice the rate of the broadest band, band D, and three times that of the basic band, band A. That means, in effect, that in our only property tax the rate for a £10 million mansion is only three times the rate for a bedsit. That is clearly a ludicrous way to tax property. The band H top rate is only £320,000. Let us take as an example the royal London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, just along from where we are now. A £90 million mansion—I can see no other way to describe a £90 million house—in Kensington Palace gardens pays council tax of £2,151. That is the top rate of council tax that can possibly be paid in the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea—exactly the same as the rate for a small flat in that borough. That is a nonsensical property tax. That is why my party, the Liberal Democrats, backs the introduction of a mansion tax on properties with a value of over £2 million, with an annual levy of 1% on the excess over £2 million. That means that someone who had a £2.1 million mansion would pay mansion tax of £1,000 tax a year, while someone with a £3 million mansion would pay mansion tax of £10,000 a year.
The Minister and several other Members have asked what would happen to people who are asset-rich but income-poor. We have always had a very simple answer to that. In those cases, the tax would be rolled up and would crystallise once the property was sold and then be met from the sale price. That is a very simple concept for a very simple tax. We have also said that it should be a national tax, not a local tax. We have not hypothecated it to any particular tax measure, and we have not tied it to the reintroduction of a 10p tax rate as the Opposition have, which is why we do not support their motion. However, it could take us to the final milestone of getting to the £10,000 income tax-free threshold that I am reasonably confident will be announced very shortly. It could certainly contribute to getting the Liberal Democrats to where we wish to go next—that is, to making sure that every adult on the national minimum wage, which is currently £12,071, should not be caught in the income tax net. We may be able to make progress towards that in the latter days of this coalition, but it will certainly be in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in 2015; we are completely clear about that.
Labour Members have linked their mansion tax proposal—at least the concept, as they have not fleshed out what it really is—to the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate. I think it is fair to have a little look at Labour’s record on the 10p tax rate. I love Budget debates, and I have been in the House for all of them in the eight years that I have been an MP. In March 2007, I was sitting just where the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) is sat on the Opposition Benches as I listened to last Budget speech of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in which he announced the abolition of the 10p tax rate. That was met on the then Government Benches with wild cheers and waving of Order Papers because it was to finance a cut in the basic rate of tax from 22% to 20%. Why was that being done? What was so crucial about its timing? As we know, the then Chancellor was heir apparent to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. He thought that there was going to be an autumn 2007 general election and that an income tax cut for better-off people in society, financed by the poorest, whom he assumed would always vote Labour, seemed like a good piece of populist politics—but it backfired and blew up in his face. Six years on, we are asked to believe that Labour wants to make good for that mistake.
There was another tax change in 2007 that does not get much attention. A lot of Labour Members here today were not Members of the House at that time, so I will forgive them for not remembering, but perhaps someone else on the Labour Benches wants to remind us of the other tax change that the former Prime Minister introduced in 2007. I see that there are no volunteers, so I will tell the House, because I can see that Members are now in suspense: it was a doubling of the inheritance tax threshold from £325,000 to £650,000 in a double-income household. That is Labour’s record in government: tax cuts for the wealthy. We know that they were completely discombobulated by the then shadow Chancellor’s announcement to the Conservative party conference of a cut in inheritance tax and were keen to match it.
I am sure that Labour Members love reading Polly Toynbee’s column every week and that it is compulsory reading at the breakfast table in Labour households and in the Tea Room. In her column in The Guardian this morning dear Polly said:
“Labour barely dared breathe on the riches that soared upwards on their watch.”
I could not agree more. At the time of its abolition, the 10p tax rate taxed incomes under £7,455 at 10%, but since taking office we have taken such incomes out of tax altogether. Surely it is better to be taxed at 0% than at 10%, so the coalition has been much fairer to people on low incomes.
That is not all that the coalition has done. We have restricted pension tax relief. Up to May 2010 under Labour someone could put more than £250,000 a year into their pension pot, whereas this year under the coalition the figure is only £40,000. We raised capital gains tax from 18% to 28% and stamp duty on properties worth more than £2 million to 7%. We might not have been able to persuade our coalition partners on an annual mansion tax, but we have persuaded them on a mansion duty when properties of that value are acquired.
We have done more to tackle avoidance. We set up an affluence unit in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which will examine in detail the affairs of 500,000 of the most wealthy people, and placed a 15% charge on domestic properties bought via a company—a classic example of avoidance that the previous Government did little to block, just as they did not block and, indeed, voted against disguised remuneration when we proposed to tackle it in one of our first Finance Bills.
We have been through many Opposition days, both in government and in opposition. When the votes are counted at 10 past 4, very little will have changed. What are the origins of this motion? We know that it is based on a policy stolen from the Liberal Democrats. I understand the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) also proposed it in his leadership bid, so one brother steals from the other as well as from the Liberal Democrats. This is pantomime politics, but nobody is laughing.
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.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
This debate is about tax fairness, with contributions from both sides having focused on that challenge. The year 2013 is not 2008 or 2001; we are in different times and facing different challenges and, therefore, different choices. We are undoubtedly in tough times, in difficult times; we are in a period of austerity, and, as a result, we have different choices to make.
Individuals also have different choices to make. I am being contacted, as I am sure every other right hon. and hon. Member is, by constituents living through these tough times and finding it difficult to make ends meet, owing to rising prices, fuelled by the hike in VAT, which was one of the very first decisions of this Conservative-led Administration. Despite describing it as a tax bombshell in the general election campaign, the Liberal Democrats sadly supported this most regressive of tax increases. Energy bills, fuel bills, food bills and rail fares are all rising, making it difficult for ordinary people and families to make ends meet.
Prices are rising and incomes are falling. Ordinary people are finding it difficult to make ends meet, because incomes are falling and people are losing their jobs or losing hours they want to work or reducing their pay in order to help businesses through these difficult times and to manage the situation together. That is what businesses in my constituency are doing—managing the situation with their work force—which often means reducing hours and pay, but keeping businesses and households afloat.
These are difficult times, with the squeeze on hard-working families worsened by the reduction in tax credit eligibility and the looming spectre of the bedroom tax, to which several right hon. and hon. Members have referred. People are struggling to make ends meet. They are doing their best to keep their heads above water. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, we see the number of food banks expanding and child poverty rising. In 2013, these are things that none of us would wish to see in the United Kingdom—one of the richest countries in the world—on our collective watch. These are tough times in the real world.
Stephen Williams
Yes, in tough times we have to make tough choices. I recognise that some of them are uncomfortable, but does the hon. Gentleman lament the fact that in 2007, when budget revenues were increasing and the economy was perceived to be booming, the previous Labour Government decided to put up taxes on the very poorest?
Nic Dakin
The hon. Gentleman will be alert to the fact that I came into this House only in 2010. We can all look back with hindsight and be critical of decisions made at different times. One of the issues for us all in these difficult times is whether with hindsight on the decisions we are making today people will say we made the right decisions.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for his impassioned slap-down of the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). What is clear from today’s contributions is the gap between what Labour Members—and, we hope, Liberal Democrat Members—believe to be the fair and right thing to do, and what many Conservative Members believe.
As I said, the Opposition motion is based on a simple premise: a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million should be part of a fair taxation system and used to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes. Let us be honest—I know that Government Members cannot stay in denial of this any longer—those people are finding that their household budgets are seriously squeezed. An increasing number of hard-working families up and down the country are reaching breaking point. A number of hon. Members gave heartfelt accounts of the difficulties that many of their constituents are facing: the rise in the use of food banks; the VAT increase; rising energy and fuel bills, rail fares; and other household budget difficulties.
Catherine McKinnell
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he has been mentioned twice.
Stephen Williams
The hon. Lady again mentioned the tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes, which is in the Labour motion and indeed the coalition Government’s alternative. Will she confirm that the tax cut in the Labour motion matches up with what the Labour leader said last month when endorsing our policy of a mansion tax and that the tax cut that Labour is talking about is reintroducing the 10p tax rate?
Catherine McKinnell
We have made Labour’s approach clear. We have said that we would like to fund a 10p tax rate for the lowest earners. We have not specified that that is what the Government should do with this; we have said that it should be used to fund a tax cut for those on low and middle incomes. So if the Liberal Democrats want to support us in the Lobby, they can then pressure the Government to use that money in any way they see fit.
So let me remind the House of the context of today’s debate. Many of our constituents are struggling to make ends meet, due to a combination of under-employment, stagnating wages, rising food, fuel and child care costs, and of course the Government’s hike on VAT. Our constituents will be further hit by a £6.7 billion cut in working-age benefits and tax credits over the next four years. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster)—the Liberal Democrat Minister—is groaning but that is the reality for many families up and down the country. At the same time, we read of hundreds of bankers at different financial institutions, including one owned by the state, earning more than £1 million per year. We have a Chancellor seeking but failing to use his ever-diminishing influence in Europe to fight against proposals to limit bankers’ bonuses to “just a year’s salary”. We have a coalition Government who will give the 13,000 people in this country earning more than £1 million a year a tax cut of £100,000 next month. No wonder people are angry and no wonder our economy is not growing when ordinary people cannot afford to spend and invest. We—or, more accurately, the Prime Minister—heard only last week from the OBR that fiscal consolidation measures have reduced economic growth over the past couple of years.
Catherine McKinnell
These arguments have been rehearsed many times and we have made clear our absolute opposition to cutting the top rate of tax at this time while slapping charges on the poorest in society. No wonder the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has spoken of the Government’s need to neutralise claims that they cut taxes for the rich.
Let us look at the Opposition motion, because I think the Liberal Democrats are dancing on the head of a pin when they say that they cannot support it. It calls for the introduction of a charge on properties worth more than £2 million, a mansion tax that the Liberal Democrats have estimated would raise £2 billion. We say that it could be used to fund a 10p tax band of up to £1,000, benefiting 25 million basic rate taxpayers to the tune of £100. We believe that Liberal Democrat Members should put aside their loyalty to the Conservatives and vote in favour of a principle—the principle of tax fairness at a time when so little of it is in evidence from this Government.
How could the Liberal Democrats do otherwise? Only last month, they made the introduction of a mansion tax the centrepiece of their Eastleigh by-election campaign. Recent media appearances have certainly suggested that they will support the principle, with the Business Secretary declaring that if the Opposition motion
“is purely a statement of support for the principle of a mansion tax I’m sure my colleagues would want to support it.”
Asked again at the weekend which part of the Opposition motion he disagreed with, the Liberal Democrat president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), replied, “None of it.” The former leader, the right hon. Lord Ashdown, declared that it would be “weird” if the Liberal Democrats voted against it. He is not the first person to call Liberal Democrats weird, but they have the opportunity to put that right today and to get on the road to normality by supporting their own policy.
Only yesterday, the hon. Member for Bristol West—I shall mention him one last time—said of the Opposition motion,
“I could have written it myself”,
yet today he complains that we have stolen his party’s policy. If such childishness gets in the way of the Liberal Democrats supporting their own policy in the Lobby, members of the public will be baffled and extremely disappointed.
Catherine McKinnell
I would give way, but I am running out of time.
We think that the Opposition motion presents those of us who believe in a fair and equitable taxation system with the opportunity to demonstrate that fact by voting in favour of it today. Will this be yet another example of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing to the electorate and doing something very different in government? What about their partners in crime—I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I mean partners in government—the Conservatives? We know that an increasing number of Conservative Members fear that they appear out of touch and that some, most notably the hon. Members for Harlow, for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), all of whom are noticeably absent from the Chamber, have argued that a way to counter that impression would be to reintroduce a 10p tax rate.
I have argued before that the best way to neutralise the impression that the Government are out of touch and only cut taxes for the rich is to stop cutting taxes for the rich, such as the millionaires’ tax cut that will take effect from April. I also acknowledge that it was a mistake to get rid of the 10p rate in 2007, although it enabled the 22p rate to be reduced to the 20p rate that is still in place today.
We believe that the best way to fund a new 10p tax band is through the mansion tax. Many right hon. and hon. Members have expressed concerns about how the mansion tax would work in practice, about how properties would be valued and about how people who live in £2 million properties but are apparently cash poor would pay. We have also heard, however, that the Treasury is drawing up detailed proposals for an annual charge on high-value residential properties owned by companies, partnerships or investment vehicles. It demonstrates that our plans—Liberal Democrat and Labour plans—for a mansion tax, an annual charge on high-value residential properties owned by private individuals, are entirely feasible, entirely realistic and entirely possible.
Our motion calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for a mansion tax, so that they can be considered in more detail by the House. The Opposition motion is simply expressed; it responds to Liberal Democrat concerns, and we still hope they will support us by voting for it. It calls for a tax on individuals fortunate enough to live in a high-value residential property, to support a tax cut for millions of hard-working low and middle-income families up and down the country at a time when they desperately need our support to put money back into household pockets and demand back into the economy. The motion provides all Members with the opportunity to demonstrate their support for a tax system based on fairness and equity, and I commend it to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
We have cut the deficit by a quarter, a million new jobs are being created in the private sector and there is record employment in our economy, as well as record female employment. We are rebalancing the British economy after all the problems of the past. The hon. Gentleman talks about remorse and contrition, but until we hear some remorse and contrition from those on the Labour Front Bench about the economic mistakes they made, no one will pay the slightest attention to what they, and in particular the shadow Chancellor, have to say.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Given that the UK Government are able to borrow at historically low rates, may I urge my right hon. Friend to take advantage of that position in order to prioritise capital investment, particularly in the housing market, to give a strong fillip to growth?
Mr Osborne
We have increased capital investment from the period of the Labour Government. Capital spending as a percentage of our national income is more than under the Labour Government, and we have increased by £10 billion our spending on capital from the plans they left us. I agree that we should be using the Government’s credibility to do more, which is why the infrastructure guarantees and the housing guarantees are coming on stream. Guarantees are being written and that will help to build the infrastructure that this country needs.
Financial Services
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. One recommendation of the Wheatley review was that the setting of LIBOR benchmarks should include objectivity. That will require a reduction in the number of benchmarks because some do not have the volume of transactions to establish that, but the new regulated conduct of LIBOR setting will include a requirement to route the reporting of rates through transactions that are visible to the Financial Services Authority. The opportunity to parlay the commercial interest of particular banks into what is supposed to be an objective rate will therefore no longer be there.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
My right hon. Friend has delivered his statement in his usual calm and moderate way, but his constituents in Tonbridge and mine in Bristol West will be absolutely disgusted and furious when they discover that a lot of these abuses took place after the £45.5 billion taxpayer-funded bail-out of the Royal Bank of Scotland that saved those jobs. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is clearly still working, but surely one outcome of such abuses should be that any individual involved is struck off—whatever criminal and civil sanctions could be taken against them—and never allowed to work anywhere else in British financial services. If they were a doctor, lawyer or accountant, that is precisely what should happen. That is the real culture change that we need in banking.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right. The constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) might be concerned if I sought to represent them, but my constituents in Tunbridge Wells do, I think, share the fury that has been described. For a bank that has caused the taxpayer to bail it out to such an extent to then engage in practices that could—had we not taken action to require clawback—have resulted in further cost to the taxpayer, is outrageous. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) that the individuals implicated in such practices should leave the financial services and find a better living, rather than working in an industry in which trust and confidence is required.
Banking Reform
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
I confess that I did not quite understand whether the hon. Gentleman’s point was that he objects to the power to separate any particular bank or the general point, but we can talk about it afterwards. It is important that the regulator—the Bank of England—should have the ability to address a bank that breaches the rules and that does not respect the integrity of the ring fence with consequences, those consequences being full separation.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that consumers and businesses want the existing banking sector to receive the hot blast of competition and that, in order for that competition and choice to exist, we need a regulatory regime that will allow in new entrants, especially those that specialise in community-based banking and in lending to small businesses and social enterprises? Might not one such new entrant emerge from the break-up of the state-controlled RBS?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend and I completely agree about the need for more competition in the banking sector. It is one of the features of the banking crisis that it has resulted in a concentration in the number of banks. Frankly, there were never enough in the first place, and we need urgently to see more new entrant banks of all types coming in. We are working with the existing regulatory authorities and, through amendments to the Bill, we will transform the state of competition in the banking sector. I very much hope to see an infusion of new energy and talent into the banking system in this country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
Yesterday, I met the leader and chief executive of Sheffield and we were discussing the very good progress made in the Sheffield city deal, which all parties, including the hon. Gentleman’s, strongly support as being key to the economic prosperity of Sheffield in the future. I would hope that he would welcome that.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
We already know that in April the personal tax allowance is going to be raised to £9,400—the largest rise in history. By the time we next meet for Treasury questions, the Chancellor will have put the finishing touches to his Budget. I now urge him to take the final step and deliver £10,000 of tax-free pay in time for April 2014.
Mr Osborne
We have a very clear commitment to reach that £10,000. We have not put a time scale on it, but even under the plans we have already put forward, that level will be reached with inflation increases before the end of this Parliament. This is a good example of two parties coming together to help working people across this country.
Corporate Tax Avoidance
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales
That could well be the case, and I shall speak about that later, too.
The person who wrote to me saying that they could not get a VAT number for the iPad they bought for business purposes was told that Amazon was unable to provide one. Had that been made clear to the buyer, they would have gone elsewhere to get a lower net price. Who knows, they might even have gone to Comet.
Amazon’s turnover in Europe is €7 billion. The gross VAT on that, even at Luxembourg’s lower rate of 15%, would be more than €1 billion. Where is it paid? That would be €2,000 a head for every man, woman and child in Luxembourg, but I would guess that is not paid at such a rate. I would also guess that Amazon’s UK order fulfilment subsidiary pays little or no VAT. I ask the Minister urgently to investigate how the business model operates.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I happen to be reading Deloitte’s tax guide to Luxembourg in 2012, which states that the standard rate of VAT in Luxembourg is 15%, but that for printed materials and e-books it is 3%.
Ian Swales
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Amazon has already been found out for charging 20% when it should have been charging 3% on e-books.
Should we care about all that? Yes, we should. There is the obvious point about the loss of billions in Government revenue, leading to higher taxes on other parts of the economy or cuts in services, including the very infrastructure and services on which a tax-avoiding company and its employees might depend. Then there is the question of competition. My previous experience was in the global chemicals industry, but in the internet and franchising age, the unfair effects can hit anyone. Our high streets are now subject to global competition in burger restaurants, bookshops and coffee bars. Local bookmakers have largely disappeared rather than trying to compete with rivals operating from Gibraltar—on paper. Most retailers are competing not only with the unstoppable rise of the internet but with offshore-based giants such as Amazon and eBay. The list of national and local UK businesses that cannot compete will get longer and longer: Comet was the latest to go broke, just before Christmas, probably costing the UK taxpayer £50 million.
Companies that pile up untaxed revenue in tax havens also have enormous financial muscle to reinvest cheaply or take out any other business they want to. It was recently estimated that the world’s tax havens hold $13 trillion of cash, which is the total GDP of the USA plus Japan, or enough to buy the entire London stock market four times over. That highlights the compound effect of tax avoidance, as those companies benefit from not paying the tax to begin with and can then use that money to compete ever more aggressively.
The big accountancy firms have led the charge in devising schemes from which companies benefit. What world do they envisage? If more and more companies routinely avoid taxes, the Government will get revenue only from people stuck as employees on pay-as-you-earn, and from property taxes, business rates and ever-increasing VAT and duty from the companies that cannot find ways to avoid them. There will be a net move from tax on companies to tax on individuals, and if that trend continues, only companies with offshore tax havens will be able to compete. A nation of shopkeepers will be run out of business. There is also a threat to our political system, because we cannot expect all those who pay their taxes fully and fairly to keep on tolerating such abuses indefinitely. UK Uncut might be just the start of the protests.
I have been talking about the problem; now I want to explore ideas for action. First, having a national tax system operating in an international business world means that we need to police our financial borders just as rigorously as we police our physical borders for illegal movements of people, counterfeit goods, drugs or any other activity that we want to control. We must say that if a sale or business activity takes place in the UK it should be accounted for in the UK. The idea that an item can be manufactured in the UK, stored in the UK and shipped to a UK customer, but invoiced from Luxembourg, must be challenged.
We should then force transparency into the system. UK companies doing the right thing report their profits and taxes paid to Companies House in some detail, so the blanket taxpayer confidentiality regime in HMRC, which prevents the disclosure of tax affairs not only to Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee but to HMRC’s own non-executive directors, mainly helps the international tax avoiders. It is time for the publication of simple statistics that are mostly available anyway in Companies House, as that would force companies to justify their behaviour. Transparency and honesty with consumers are important. If companies have nothing to hide, they will have nothing to fear.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Much of the debate so far has been about the domestic impact of corporate tax avoidance, and rightly so. Safeguarding the UK tax base and watching over how the Government spend its proceeds is one of the primary duties of the House of Commons, over which you preside, Mr Speaker.
I begin by mentioning some of the international tax impacts of corporation tax avoidance. Over the last year, I worked closely with ActionAid and Christian Aid to highlight how multinational companies divert their profits all around the world and avoid paying tax in the countries where they derive much of that money, particularly in the developing world. It is entirely appropriate that a great deal of our increasing budget for international development is spent on upgrading the capacity of developing countries to safeguard their tax base, so that they build expertise in their equivalents of HMRC to make sure that they can stand up to multinational companies.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) said earlier, when he referred to the report of the International Development Committee. One of the things we need as a country in terms of our corporate law is country by country reporting so that we can see clearly, whether as shareholders, Government, consumers or citizens, where UK-based companies are earning their profits, where their economic activities take place and, more importantly, how much tax on those activities is being paid and where.
We are concerned about UK-based companies that have huge UK activity but apparently pay little UK corporation tax. Several companies were highlighted in the course of our debate; Starbucks was one of them. Several months ago, I was the first Member of Parliament to criticise the UK operations of Starbucks, so I was pleased that the chief executive of Starbucks UK, Mr Kris Engskov, came to see me in my office in Portcullis House and used all his Arkansas charm to run through some of the corporate numbers line by line to persuade me that the company was doing nothing wrong. I have to take at face value what he said about high rental charges in the UK, although they do not seem to affect competitors in the field. None the less, Starbucks structures its international corporate affairs so as to minimise its tax liabilities. If royalties are paid on the brand of a company that originated in Seattle, yet the brand value lies in the Netherlands and the cup of coffee is bought elsewhere in Europe, where even with the generosity of the common agricultural policy we do not grow coffee, it is obvious that aggressive tax planning is taking place. Consumer pressure has led Starbucks to seek to make voluntary tax payments.
Several Members mentioned Amazon. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) described in some detail what Amazon does. I disagree that the company has a novel business structure that has enhanced the book-purchasing experience. I have never bought a book from Amazon. The company has in essence developed older business models, such as mail order and telesales, which have been around for half a century. There is nothing particularly innovative or transformational about it, yet we are asked to believe that there are huge amounts of intellectual property and that royalty and interest payments are needed to have what appears at first inspection to be an artificial structure, contrived for tax rather than business purposes.
Of course, Amazon also damages the high street, and the principal reason I have never bought anything from it is the loss of bookshops from all our high streets. It structures its sales via Luxembourg because the corporation tax rate there is 21%. Over time, the coalition Government will reduce the differential between that country and the UK; it was 7% in 2010, but that will be eroded. Perhaps at some point Amazon will ship its books and DVDs from some other lower-corporate-tax haven.
What would my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I like to happen, so that we can tackle the problem? First, we need the right resources in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I listened carefully to Labour Members earlier, when they lamented the reduction in HMRC’s total staffing numbers. Of course we all lament the fact that cuts have to take place, but what is more important is not the total headcount of a public sector organisation, but what people are doing in it. What HMRC needs is specialists and forensic accountants to tackle these complicated transactions. That is why I am pleased that, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced extra resources in that area, and that we would look at transfer pricing. The second thing that I would like is the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule—something for which my colleagues and I have called many times in the past few years. There will be legislation on that later this calendar year.
Thirdly, there needs to be much more transparency about the deals that HMRC is striking with several international companies. I am talking about the sorts of issues frequently raised in the pages of Private Eye; Vodafone is a classic example. We often see people who might be characterised as benefit scroungers named and shamed in the press, and it is right that that happens. I would like much more transparency about the deals being done with large companies, with regard to how much tax is at stake and what deal has been arrived at.
Fourthly, and more importantly, we need more international action through the European Union. It is ludicrous that corporation tax rates vary so much in what is supposed to be a single market, and within the OECD, in the model tax treaties. They are double taxation treaties that are meant to prevent double taxation of the same profit by more than one country, but they are being used for the perverted purpose of avoiding tax altogether. We need to get to a system in which the commercial substance, rather than the legal form, is looked at closely by tax authorities, and that is what ends up being taxed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
The Department for Work and Pensions will, of course, publish an impact assessment in the normal way when the Bill is published.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
The most significant way in which any Government can help people with their household budgets is to put more money in their pockets and purses, particularly money that they have earned themselves and which is subject to taxation. Does the Chief Secretary agree that one of the most important things that the coalition Government will do is lift millions of people out of income tax altogether, and, by April next year, deliver a broad income tax cut of £600 a year in relation to the level in April 2010?
Danny Alexander
Like my hon. Friend, I want to build a strong economy and a fair society where everyone has a chance to get on in life. The commitment to raise the income tax threshold was a commitment that he and I and all our colleagues made at the general election, and we are delivering on it in Government. There is a tax cut for working people cumulatively over this Parliament, and next year it will be worth £50 a month to people on low and middle incomes. That is real help for hard-working families at what is a difficult time.
The Economy
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the new hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who, as she said, is the first hon. Lady to represent that constituency. We all remember our maiden speeches for a long time—if we are honest, probably longer than anyone else remembers them—and we learned a great deal about Rotherham from the vivid and balanced picture that she painted of the challenges facing her constituency as well as some of the good things that have happened in recent years. Perhaps I can extrapolate that picture wider into today’s debate on the state of the economy. As we know, the economy still faces deep-seated challenges, but none the less good things are happening at the same time.
The economy fell into a very deep hole in the last couple of the years of the previous Government—it contracted by more than 6%. We must be honest that it is taking longer than any of us would have wanted to repair and recover from that deep economic damage, but, none the less, good things are happening. Some 1.2 million private sector jobs have been created since the first quarter of 2010. Unemployment has consistently fallen this year, and employment is at a new high. The rate of unemployment in the UK is marginally lower than the rate in the US—7.8% versus 7.9%—and considerably lower than the rate in the eurozone, which is 11.7%.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)—my coalition colleague, who is no longer in the Chamber—spoke at length about the public finances and the state of Government borrowing. The OBR has said that borrowing will fall by £1.5 billion from fiscal years 2011-12 to 2012-13. Borrowing has fallen throughout this Parliament, and the deficit, as a proportion of our economy, has been reduced by a quarter in the first two years of the coalition Government. Reducing that deficit fully to the point at which we have balanced the nation’s books is taking longer than we would like, but the trajectory is clear.
We still have a higher rate of borrowing than most of our fellow EU member states, yet the Government can borrow at a lower rate than them. The UK Government can currently borrow on the international markets at a rate of 1.8%. Germany, practically the only nation that can borrow at a lower rate, borrows at 1.3%—France borrows at more than 2%, Spain at 5.24%, and Greece at an eye-watering 15.2%. The UK Government, despite having one of the largest deficits in the developed world, can borrow at those low rates because of international confidence that the country and our public finances are coming back on track.
However, hon. Members want more confidence at home. We want more confidence among our constituents, whether they are in Rotherham or Bristol West, that the Government are on their side and are doing what they can for them in these difficult times. Constituents want confidence that the Government are holding down the cost of living and giving them more money in their pockets.
For those reasons, I welcome the fact that the Government have again held down the cost of fuel by cancelling the 3p per litre rise in fuel prices that was due to take place on 1 January. Many of my Liberal Democrat rural colleagues welcome that initiative and campaigned for it, but it will also make a difference to the urban poor whom I represent in Bristol. However, the measure is enormously expensive—it will cost roughly £1.6 billion next year. At some point, politicians must face the fact that fuel prices are going in only one direction in our lifetimes, and that we need to find a new way of taxing movement—I believe road user pricing is the way forward. The fuel duty increase cancellation and previous measures taken by the Government save the average private motorist about £40 per annum, but they could save a road haulier—a small business person—up to £1,200 a year, which is a major advantage for many road haulage firms in the country.
The Government have frozen council tax and capped the increase in rail fares, but the biggest difference this Government have made is putting more money into people’s pockets by raising the income tax threshold—it will not surprise the House to hear me say that yet again. When the Government came to office, the income tax threshold was just under £6,500. As a result of the announcements in the autumn statement last week, the amount of tax-free pay that individuals can receive will increase to £9,440. That is an increase of £3,000 over the first three years of the coalition Government.
We will have taken 2.2 million people out of income tax altogether. Come next April, when our constituents look at their payslips, they will see that they have received an income tax cut of £600 since the Government came to office. That disproportionately helps people who work part-time, particularly women who work part-time, and will also help young people. Young people on the minimum wage, even at a full-time rate, will be raised out of income tax completely—they will no longer pay any income tax—while the income tax bill for an adult on the minimum wage will be halved from £1,020 when we came to office to £520 now. That makes a significant difference to people on low earnings.
Liberal Democrats also want fair taxes on the wealthy. The coalition Government have increased capital gains tax and stamp duty on expensive properties—[Hon. Members: “What about the mansion tax?”] I am coming to that. We have hauled more people into higher rate tax and clawed back pension tax relief—a person could put £250,000 into their pension under Labour, but that figure will be £40,000 under the coalition. The Liberal Democrats wanted a mansion tax, but we agreed not to proceed with it, in return for our Conservative coalition partners not pushing for punitive measures restricting benefits. That means that the loopy idea—in my opinion—of restricting housing benefit for under-25s is not Government policy.
We also need to do more, and the Government are doing more, to tackle tax avoidance and tax evasion. The Treasury has an affluence unit. We have a new treaty with Switzerland and we are tackling corporate tax avoidance—I am sure that Starbucks, Amazon and others will be shamed into doing the right thing. The Government are balancing the nation’s books, building a sustainable economy, restructuring the banks and introducing fair taxation. We have made much progress. We know the road is difficult, but now is not the time to be blown off course.