Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The issue of a public register is critical to any measures that are taken in the future, because such a register will enable these kleptocrats to be held to account—particularly in the developing world, where they have denied development resources to the economies of their countries.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Transparency throughout the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories is, of course, crucial. Does not the lack of such transparency further reinforce the message to our constituents that there is one tax rule for the rich and powerful, and another for everyone else?

[John McDonnell]

One of the key things that I think the whole House must do in the coming period is re-establish the credibility and fairness of our taxation system, which has been so badly damaged.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

I will come on to that point. The Government have made the case that the Bill will support high streets and deal with the challenges of online shopping and the like. However, to go back to the campaign, when my hon. Friends and other Members were campaigning up and down their high streets—my constituency is full of high streets, like many other constituencies—was this mentioned to them? I do not remember that happening. In fact, only one large outlet, Asda, mentioned it. The rest did not once say that the way to rebuild and regenerate high streets was to deregulate Sunday trading. In fact, they wanted business rates, car parking and things such as that to be sorted out.

I do not need to rely only on what my constituents are saying. Let me look at the Government’s review, which was a proper review, into how we can regenerate and improve the high street. If we page through that substantial review, we will not see a big case being made that the one way to regenerate the high street is to deregulate shopping hours for large shops. That will threaten small businesses.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

Let me take my pick. I give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is it not misleading for the Government to describe this as a devolution measure? Is it not simply a fact that the moment one council adopts these powers, every neighbouring council will be forced to follow suit?

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

Short Money

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I gave in my initial remarks an illustration of some of the peculiarities of the distribution of Short money. I gave comparisons between the money received by UKIP and the Greens, but there are other examples. Many Members of smaller Opposition parties will be able to quote examples of why they feel they are being either under or over-remunerated, depending on who they are. Therefore, it is certainly sensible for us to ask how that can be improved and whether the basis of allocation can be made better.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

“Cutting the cost of politics,” the Minister says, meaning cutting the number of elected MPs while stuffing the other place full of his mates, and cutting support to Opposition parties while greatly increasing the number of Government special advisers. If he wants to cut the cost of politics, why has the Conservative party claimed £1.27 million in policy develop grants since 2010?

[John Penrose]

The allocations of money as per policy development grants are based on recommendations by the independent Electoral Commission, not on Government proposals. I would also point out that we are practicing what we preach, because in previous years the allocation of policy development grants to the Conservative party has been scaled back. We have handed some of that money back, for precisely the reasons that I described earlier about wanting to cut the cost of politics.

Tax Avoidance and Multinational Companies

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful for the intervention. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that I was not the most enamoured of the Labour Government’s track record during that period, but it was a Labour Government who started this inquiry and the hon. Gentleman’s Government took six years to complete it. According to a recent estimate by the Financial Times, the measures introduced by the Labour Government will reap 10 times the amount of tax that this Government have secured.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will not many of our constituents find it difficult to understand the fact that this information is largely in the public domain? We know the profits, assets and liabilities of Google in the United Kingdom because those finances are public. We also know how much tax is being paid. Does that not lead us to the conclusion that the tax rate is 2.77%, not 20%?

[John McDonnell]

Let me come on to that point.

It did not take long for independent analysis to show what a derisory sum the Google tax payment was. The word “derisory” is not just my description, but the word used by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the Mayor of London, as well as many others. Google had a UK turnover of approximately £4 billion in 2014-15. If profits here were similar to those across the whole group, about a 25% return, that implies £1 billion-worth of profits. If the standard 20% corporation tax is levied, that implies a £200 million tax bill for the one year, not the £200 million paid by Google for the decade. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, independent assessors have estimated that the Google tax rate for the past decade was 3%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

This is, undoubtedly, an important debate for all the people outside the House who have commented on the subject, which is of great concern. We are talking about a complex matter, which may require, in the longer run, fundamental reform and international co-operation. There are no easy fixes. The deal with Google needs to be scrutinised, for the sake of all who are concerned that it might be described as a sweetheart deal. That is why I fully supported my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) in taking the initiative and being the first person to write to the European Commission to seek an independent examination of the settlement. There is a lack of transparency in the deal, but these are difficult matters, and we may have to look at changing some of the rules in the longer run.

To many people, the recent agreement between Google and HMRC is very obscure and opaque, and gives the appearance of being very generous to a large multinational corporation. It contrasts sharply with the experience of many local SMEs. I would be astonished if I were the only Member of the House who has received comments from innumerable small businesses about what they perceive as the unfairness of the deal. I want to quote the views of two SMEs in my constituency. First:

“It is galling that my business pays its taxes on time and in full, but huge corporations like Google do not and seem to be able to avoid doing so for years”,

says Jim Cruickshank of Cruickshank Glaziers. Secondly:

“It seems there are stringent rules for small domestic businesses but another much easier world for major companies. This often gives unfair competitive advantage to the large companies”,

says Stewart Murray of the Farm Shop, Kirkcaldy. That is a concern of many of our domestic businesses. Because of the complexity of their tax affairs and of how they can operate, many of the largest corporations find that they have—in many cases, legitimately, in this system—a major competitive advantage over domestic businesses.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Does that not show how SMEs across the United Kingdom feel they have been treated? Their impression is that there is one tax law for them and another for large multinational companies. Does it not also provide a contrast between the British approach and the approach of some of our European colleagues to the very same issues? They are holding out for a much better deal for their taxpayers.

[Roger Mullin]

Many people throughout Britain will think that the hon. Gentleman has made a very fair point. That is why I have been arguing that we must have a proper investigation and why, perhaps in the longer run, we need to do something about greater transparency. It will be very difficult for us to bring a proper critique to bear if we do not get such clarification.

It must, of course, be admitted that this is not a new phenomenon. I first became aware of concerns about multinationals paying their fair share of UK taxes back in the early 1970s, when I briefly worked for the multinational IBM, and I am aware of concerns predating that. This has not been going on for just one or two years; Governments have not been able to resolve this issue satisfactorily for decades, which emphasises its complexity. The issue has been around for a long time, regardless of whether this country had a Labour or Tory Government and regardless of which parties formed Governments in many other countries.

I remember that the concerns back in the early 1970s were about what was called “transfer pricing”. For example, a company could buy a handle from a parent company in another country and charge an exorbitant fee for it, which allowed them easily to transfer profits from one area to another. I would be the first to admit that there have been moves to tighten up many such matters since the 1970s, but it remains a fundamental problem to this day. Corporation tax seems to be very susceptible to avoidance by multinational corporations because of the way in which they can, quite legally, operate.

HMRC and Google (Settlement)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The United Kingdom’s position on taxpayer confidentiality is hardly unique. Indeed, it is the mainstream approach. Knowing what a company’s tax liability might be depends on a detailed understanding of the whereabouts of its assets and activities, and not all of that information would necessarily be apparent from a straight tax return. As I have said, there is greater transparency now because companies have to set out their strategies, which has never been the case before.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Minister is trying to have it both ways. These are companies, not individuals, so the confidentiality excuse does not wash with me. We know what the profits, assets and the liabilities are, because they are in the companies’ accounts. We also know that the corporation tax rate is 20%. On the basis of both those pieces of information, how much does Google actually owe the Exchequer?

[Mr Gauke]

The principle of taxpayer confidentiality is not new. It has existed for as long as we have had a tax system. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a case for abandoning it, he ought to consider what the overall consequences would be for the attractiveness of the UK as a place in which to do business. Let me add that, without fully understanding the whereabouts of a company’s assets and activities, no one is in a position to make a judgment about how much tax it should pay. HMRC is able to do that, and HMRC is bringing in more money than ever.

European Union Referendum Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

My answer to such a hypothetical voter in Scotland is the same as I gave earlier—a consequence of devolution is that the Holyrood Parliament is allowed and perfectly entitled to take its decisions on devolved matters. The Holyrood franchise is a devolved matter, but the EU referendum franchise and the general election franchise are a reserved matter for the entire country to decide and will cover the entire country as a result.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the European Union referendum is a once in a generation opportunity, and that for young people the outcome will have a direct impact on their rights as European Union citizens to live, work and study in other EU member states?

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

May I start by thanking everybody on the Opposition Benches for all the contributions they have made not just today, but during the passage of this enormously important Bill? May I also thank the Secretary of State for gracing us with his presence today? I would like to be able to thank the Minister for offering some detailed answers to the questions put to her throughout the Committee stage and today, but there were not many answers, so I will not be able to do that, I am afraid.

Labour will be opposing the Third Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Combined with the other measures in the summer Budget, this package of tax credit and benefit reforms penalises millions of working families and will risk pushing hundreds of thousands of children into poverty. It is a cruel, pernicious Bill that breaks Tory promises in almost every clause and will hit more than 10 million families in Britain. It is also indiscriminate: it hits the young, the old, those unable to work and those working every hour they can.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am pleased we will be opposing the Welfare Reform and Work Bill on Third Reading. Is not the real problem for the Government that their record so far on welfare reform has been entirely counterproductive? The facts speak for themselves: on this Government’s watch welfare bills have shot through the roof. They have cut welfare, but the bills have gone up.

[Owen Smith]

This is the first Government who have ever spent more than £1 trillion in a Parliament on social security. That is an extraordinary rise, and it has happened on the watch of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

In this Bill we are seeing the Government break their promises repeatedly. They are breaking their promises to older people, for example. Before the election, the Conservatives’ manifesto said they would “maintain all pensioner benefits”, but after the election it appears that there is a different story. Some senior Conservatives have talked about this being a “great opportunity” for deep cuts to pensioner benefits. The Minister for Community and Social Care said that pensioner benefits should not be cut immediately, but that raises the question: when are they going to cut them?

The answer appears to be that the Government are cutting pensioner benefits now, in this Bill, because 70,000 pensioners are being hit by more than £1,000 a year through the changes to support for mortgage interest. That support is a vital lifeline for many, but through this Bill the Government are chipping away at pensioner benefits and charging a 2.9% interest rate—profiteering from pensioners. By refusing our amendment 24, the Conservative party is breaking its promise to our pensioners. We will act as the watchdog for our older people on that, as we will on pensioner freedoms. A scathing report from the Work and Pensions Committee has warned that the next great mis-selling scandal will be coming soon, after the Tories introduced pension freedoms. We will be watching that, as we are watching tonight.

Just as with older people, the Conservative Government are tonight letting down young people and our children. Before the election the Conservative manifesto spoke of

“boosting the self-esteem of young people”,

but after the election the Government are failing our children, failing young people and failing the next generation.

This Bill will push 600,000 children into poverty over the course of the Parliament while fiddling the figures and hiding the Government’s shame by abolishing the child poverty target. It is a scandal that any Government can seek to withdraw income—the money people have—from a measure of poverty. If it were not so disgraceful, it would be laughable. They are stripping housing benefit away from 18 to 21-year-olds, patronising our young people with “earn or learn” boot camps and introducing a so-called living wage that kicks in only when people are 25, and the Business Minister is running down young people, saying that they do not deserve a living wage because they are not as productive.

What about the Tory promises to the sick and disabled people of Britain? Before the election the Tory manifesto said that the Conservatives would

“aim to halve the disability employment gap: we will transform policy…so that hundreds of thousands more disabled people who can and want to be in work find employment.”

But what is the truth? After the election, they are cutting support for sick and disabled people. Half a million people in the ESA WRAG are set to lose £1,500 a year. That will reduce the likelihood of a return to work, increase the number of long-term unemployed and act as a work penalty for sick or disabled people seeking to get back into work.

Tax Credits

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I will make some more progress and then give way.

These cuts will also hit the self-employed and those who run our local businesses. It is bizarre for the Government to take £1,300 off each family by highlighting how much more they have already taken in tax credits. Today, it has become even clearer that the Government have chosen to balance the books on the backs of the poor. The Chancellor has made this a debate about taking from the non-working poor or from the working poor, rather than a choice recognising that, in tough economic times, it is fairer that those who have more should contribute more.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The £1,300 that my hon. Friend cites is of course an average. Many working people in my constituency will get clobbered by a lot more than £1,300 a year. Is not the really serious point that only in April the Prime Minister said on TV—in the studios—that he would not cut tax credits?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not on the basis of one occasion that we are saying that the Government have changed their mind or have not told the truth; they have not told the truth on this measure step by step since it was first introduced in the Budget. They have tried to hide the impact on hard-working families across Britain. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the £1,300 figure is an average, and many families are set to lose much more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

As always, my hon. Friend is correct, and she brings me on to my next point. Already, more than 200 firms, including some of our biggest employers, have announced they intend to pay staff at or above the national living wage before it comes into effect, which has helped to push private sector wage growth to 4.4%, according to latest figures, at a time of low or no inflation.

Then there are the wider things we have done on living costs. We have frozen council tax and fuel duty. On childcare, we have already introduced 15 hours for the 40% most disadvantaged two-year-olds, which is just through its first full year of operation and still ramping up. From 2017, there will be 30 hours for working families with three and four-year-olds, and just the additional 15 hours will be worth £2,500 per child per year.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Minister can cut the waffle. To many of my constituents, this is a matter of trust. Why does he think the Prime Minister, on 30 April, toured the television studios and told an audience at “Question Time” that he would not cut tax credits? It was seven days before the general election. Does he think that had anything to do with it?

[Damian Hinds]

The statutory instrument does not affect the level of child tax credits. The hon. Gentleman, being a keen student of these matters, will know about the taper for tax credit awards and the stacking effect of the different elements, but the child tax credit, as the Prime Minister said, is not being changed.

Tax Credits

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is indeed shameful that we are seeing a cut in the incomes of the poorest people in our constituencies.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will in a moment.

This measure will attack families in which people are working hard to do the right thing and to achieve what we all want to see: a higher-wage economy in which people are less reliant on tax credits to make ends meet. What is before us today must be called out for what it is. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it amounts to what will be a cut of more than £3.4 billion annually by 2020—a cut that the Government have sought to slip through without even having the courage to carry out an impact assessment.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position. I am very pleased that we are taking such a strong stance on tax credits. After the Prime Minister said that he would not cut tax credits, we are seeing the most pernicious and unfair cut imposed on some of the poorest people in society. Is that not why it is right for us to stand up for them today?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are standing up for families who are doing the right thing: going out, working hard and trying to support themselves and their children.

National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I certainly agree that the Government are keen to take steps to back an economy that continues to grow and to create jobs so that everyone can have the dignity of taking home a pay cheque or starting their own business. We have taken other steps in the Finance Bill to raise the amount that people can make before having to pay income tax, and that is what this Government stand for.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Surely the Minister has not forgotten that in the lifetime of the previous Parliament—from 2010 to 2015—no fewer than 24 tax increases were put on working people by her Government. The latest Budget also includes the tax increase on insurance premiums.

[Harriett Baldwin]

That is an extraordinary line of attack. The Government have nearly doubled the personal allowance—the amount that people can make before they pay income tax—from the £6,475 that the hon. Gentleman thought was appropriate at the end of the 2010 Parliament. That is what this Government stand for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

No, I will not.

The tax lock restricts the Government’s ability to respond to unexpected economic events. That is why this Bill is seen, both outside and inside this place, as a gimmick. If we have learned anything in the last decade, it is that such flexibility is absolutely essential. Indeed, it was this flexibility at the time the Labour Government left office in 2010 that meant we had an economy recovering and growing once again. Above all, this tax lock provides no protection to millions of hard-working families, who, if the statutory instrument on tax credits is voted through by Conservative Members later today—

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is it not indicative of the level of trust in politics and politicians generally, but specifically in this Government and their record on tax, that they need to come to the House of Commons to legislate not to increase a specific tax, rather than allow people to accept their pledges at elections at face value?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for raising that point. I think that Ministers have got to think about what they are doing to public trust if they have to introduce gimmicks such as this Bill—it is a gimmick, and was seen as a gimmick by a host of commentators outside this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I am afraid that I do not accept that. This is purely weak willed on the part of the Chancellor. I thought that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury did not give us nearly as good a defence of the Bill as the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). He managed to situate it within the needs of the business community and give some rationale for it. The more the Minister spoke, the clearer it became that this is indeed a gimmick. I find that odd, because I thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to take decisions, but clearly he does not. He just wants to tie his hands behind his back at every verse end.

I think it would be a good idea to vote against the Bill, and I am slightly disappointed that we are not opposing it. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] It is not for me to say what the official Front-Bench position is, unfortunately. I want to point out to Conservative Members that we live in a world where the Chancellor has a desire to bring the deficit down very quickly. That is a difficult thing to do, as we saw when he failed comprehensively to achieve his target during the last Parliament. He is now having to go through some very choppy waters to get this done. He made a promise to introduce this legislation to fix VAT, income tax and national insurance because he thought that that would make him a low-tax Chancellor in the eyes of the British public. The fact is, however, that since then he has increased VAT to 20%, increased vehicle excise duty and increased the insurance premium tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out. He is not a low-tax Chancellor.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another reason to believe that this is purely a gimmick from the Government? The Chancellor can give the impression that he will not increase national insurance rate ceilings, but fiscal drag could still have an impact, through the back door, on the amount of national insurance that people pay.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend makes an astute point. That is one of the things that is going on here.

The Chancellor is also shifting more and more from direct taxation on income to indirect taxation on spending. In doing so, he is pushing the burden of tax from those on middle incomes to those on lower incomes. They are the true target of this Government, as we shall see in the debate on tax credits later this afternoon.

The hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) claimed that this measure was about low tax, but I would ask her to reconsider that. For whom is it about low tax? For all the reasons given by the hon. Member for North West Hampshire, including the fact that not raising the basic rate of national insurance is a good thing to do, it is clear that this is a tax on labour. At a time when we want more people to have more good jobs, that seems rather perverse.

The most perverse thing about national insurance is the upper earnings limit, and including that in the legislation is a highly political act. We shall have a debate on tax credits in a little while. Let us look at the marginal rate that the Chancellor is giving to people, taking account of the tax and benefits system. After the Budget, the effective marginal tax rate faced by second earners in couples on very low incomes with two children will be 75%. However, for those earning more than £150,000 a year, the normal marginal tax rate of less than 50% will apply. Even when universal credit is introduced, the marginal rate for people earning around £10,000 a year will be 65%, but the withdrawal rate for people earning more than £150,000 will be 48p in the pound. That is not about low tax or certainty. It is clearly about protecting the Tory party’s rich friends and rich donors.