Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Anna Soubry Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins]

That is absolutely right. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a third of the goods processed through Warrenpoint port in Northern Ireland come from the Republic of Ireland, so it would do great damage to the economy of the island of Ireland were artificial barriers to be put in place. The same is true for goods that move through what is effectively the Great Britain land bridge to the continent of Europe. A large amount of goods from the Republic of Ireland are exported to continental Europe through ports such as Dover, as well as through the channel tunnel, and it is vital for so many businesses and for the free flow of trade that they are not treated as goods being imported from a third country but allowed to flow freely just as they currently do.

It is important that we make sure not only that we get the tariff regime and the rules of trade right, but that part of our preparedness is about ensuring that we have the right physical infrastructure alongside the enabling legislation that the Government are seeking to pass. I was really pleased to hear the Chancellor announce £3 billion in the Budget to help the UK to prepare the physical infrastructure it will need for trade. Technological solutions can be put in place to make sure that trade can flow without restrictions and frictionlessly at the key trading points and the key points of entry to other markets, but the infrastructure also needs to be put in place now.

It is particularly important for my constituents in Kent that we provide a long-term solution to deal with issues such as Operation Stack. If trade is being held up, for whatever reason—be it bad weather in the channel or strike action in one of the French ports—we need the physical infrastructure in place to keep Kent’s roads open. As part of our preparations for a future in which we can keep goods and services flowing freely around our key points of trade, it is important that we have in place the right physical infrastructure. That includes a commitment to deliver the Operation Stack relief lorry park in Kent. I was pleased that the Financial Secretary was able to confirm before Christmas that the £250 million that the Government had earmarked for the delivery of that vital piece of infrastructure is still there, and I hope we will see good progress on the design this year. Not only can that relief lorry park be considered as a piece of infrastructure for dealing with Operation Stack, which can happen at any time—it has happened while we have been a member of the EU and could happen again in future—but that physical infrastructure will be there in case we need it because of delays in the movement of goods.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a good speech in which he is, of course, advocating free trade, in which we all believe—or at least Conservative Members do. Does he, like me, see the profound irony in our discussing how we are going to have to have new technologies, put in new systems and do all these other hugely complicated, very expensive things, in order to cope with leaving the customs union, even though we believe in and want free trade? Does he not think it would be much more simple and sensible just to stay in the customs union?

[Damian Collins]

My right hon. Friend makes a compelling point, but we have to accept that other political issues are being considered alongside the management of trade: our general future relationship with the European Union as a partner European continental country, but not as a member of the EU itself; whether we should have arrangements whereby the level of regulatory alignment is such that we effectively become a satellite state—a client state—of the European Union and not an independent one; and the extent to which we have to fully comply with and implement rules that we have no further part in designing in future. That is what creates difficulties around membership of the customs union and the single market. As she knows as well, the issue of membership of the single market also comes alongside considerations around the issue of free movement of persons as it is defined now.

If there is a way, through negotiation, to resolve those difficulties and to keep a system of trade that we have got used to and that works so well for our economy, without any deviation from the current system at all, and to deliver the other political objectives that people voted for in the referendum, I will welcome that. However, what we are talking about here is making sure that we prepare, both through the laws and the physical infrastructure, for a different scenario whereby, if we are not able through negotiation to replicate what we have now, we have a system in place that can deliver something that is just as good.

There are many unanswered questions because that process is still being negotiated, but, as I said at the start of my remarks, it is far better that we have the debate about what we want the system to look like now, at the same time as giving the Government the legal power to negotiate and implement what they want in future. Now is the right time to be having that debate. I am sure that there will be plenty of other opportunities for the House to debate the specifics of the deal as we progress through the negotiations this year. But now is the right time to be having this debate.

As I have said, maintaining a system of free trade is clearly what we all want and what we want to see delivered. We need to ensure that we have the legal infrastructure in place and invest in the physical infrastructure, so that we can implement the deal that we have, and in particular keep frictionless trade on the island of Ireland and at our key points of trade in Kent —at the channel tunnel and at the port of Dover—with continental Europe.

Budget Resolutions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The SNP spoke out, here and in Holyrood, 140 times before the Government finally saw sense. What about the £140 million that has been paid? The Chancellor has confirmed today what we knew all along: that it was a political choice to charge VAT on our emergency services. He has accepted that he was wrong, but I am calling on him and his friends from Scotland on the Tory Benches to make sure that we push for a refund of the VAT that has been paid over the past three years.

The Chancellor has painted a picture of a strong economy, ready for the impending economic disaster of Brexit. We all have to wonder just what planet he is on. Most workers are seeing a decline in their living standards and have done so since the financial crisis. We are living through the worst decade for wage growth in 210 years. Young people are going to be poorer than their parents. Housing has become unaffordable for many. The austerity economic model has failed millions—the Prime Minister alluded to that when she talked about those “just about managing”. Today’s Budget was an opportunity to address these challenges and make this a Budget for people and prosperity.

The reality is that nothing in this Budget deals with the challenges we face. We face the impending UK exit from Europe. We know that the Government are preparing for a no deal, yet the Chancellor made no mention of how the economy would cope with that. The cliff edge is before us and the Chancellor sits transfixed, unable or incapable of rising to the challenge. No doubt he recognises the economic self-harm that comes with leaving the single market and the customs union, but he has failed to act. Why? It is because the Brexiteers have set the agenda for this Government and the Chancellor is without the authority to challenge the madness. The Chancellor, like his Government, is in office but not in power.

We know that the Prime Minister has to present a financial settlement to the EU27 over the coming days, yet there was no mention of that in the statement—none at all. This Government have to take their head out of the sand and accept that the future indicates the likelihood of significant economic self-harm.

Before the winds of Brexit hit us, the starting position for millions of people is that by then they will have already been struggling with nine years of austerity. The cuts being imposed on public services mean impacts on service delivery, and public service workers in particular are feeling the squeeze. This Budget shows that the Chancellor is either blind to what is going on or is behaving like a frightened rabbit caught in the headlights. Either way, people are going to pay the price for his lack of leadership. [Interruption.] I can see the Chancellor saying, “An extra £2 billion for Scotland”, but let me tell this House the reality: it is a £250 million cut in real terms. That is what the Government here are delivering to the people of Scotland.

This Government used to speak of the empty rhetoric of the “long-term economic plan”, but they have failed to provide a vision and have no plan for delivering prosperity. The long-term economic plan has given way to no plan. Scratch the surface of the economy and we see a structure barely coping with the state of society: a structure that is so unfairly built in the favour of the wealthy that we have created a situation where we have the worst wage growth in 200 years and the IFS tells us that an additional 400,000 children will be in “absolute poverty” within six years due to the benefits cuts that are to come. Let us remind ourselves that there are still £12 billion of welfare cuts to come from this Tory Government.

The case is that working people are paying the price for this Government’s ideological obsession with austerity—and let us make no mistake, it is an ideological obsession. It is a pity that people watching and listening to this cannot see the Conservative Members sitting there laughing while people in our country are paying the price—those Members should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Effective stewardship of our economy has to recognise the importance of fiscal and monetary policy working in tandem to create the circumstances of sustainable and inclusive economic growth. Any disconnect leads to a failure to deliver an economy that works for all, and that is precisely what is happening. A failure to deliver a Budget for prosperity hits all workers, in particular those in the public sector.

In September, the Scottish Government became the first in the UK to announce they will scrap the public sector pay cap, as our nurses, teachers, police officers and firefighters deserve a fair deal for the future. Future pay rises will be based on the cost of living. Today, the Chancellor betrayed public sector workers by refusing to fund a fair pay rise.

It is not just the squeeze on pay that is leaving low earners struggling to get by; the UK Government’s social security cuts are specifically designed to remove the welfare state. The SNP will never accept this ideological attack on the most vulnerable in our society. The damaging and destructive universal credit system must be halted and fixed. I welcome some of the things that we have heard today, but they simply do not go far enough. The cuts to work allowances are still taking place. While young people are pushed into poverty, universal credit is not fit for purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should call a halt to it today and reform the system properly.

We also call on the Chancellor to scrap the two-child policy and the immoral rape clause. According to the IFS, the two-child cap on tax credits will mean about 600,000 three-child families losing £2,500 a year on average and about 300,000 families with four or more children losing a whopping £7,000 a year on average. Most of those families are in work. If we want to make work pay, let us remove the rape clause.

There is nothing in the Budget for the women born in the 1950s who are seeing a rise in their pensionable age of up to six years, without proper notice. That is depriving millions of a pension that they have paid for and that they are entitled to. Time and again, the Government have been asked to slow down the rate of increase in women’s pensionable age. It is increasing at a rate of three months for each calendar month. Either the Chancellor decides to act now to deliver fairness to 1950s women, or he will find that Parliament does it for him. There is a private Member’s Bill that calls for mitigation to be put in place for 1950s women. I say to the Government: recognise the cross-party nature of that Bill and act, or face defeat.

While the Tory attack on benefits pushes more families into poverty, the financial squeeze on household incomes continues as Brexit bites. Today, inflation sits at 3%. Prices are rising at a faster rate than wages. The Resolution Foundation has calculated that inflation of 3% combined with the benefits freeze will impact on 7.3 million children, 2.4 million disabled people and 800,000 people looking for work. There was no answer to that from the Chancellor—there was nothing in the Budget.

Let me tell the Chancellor and those on the Tory Benches what life is like outside the gilded rooms of Whitehall: electricity bills have increased by 9%—[Interruption.] You laugh, when people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom have seen electricity prices rise by 9%. [Interruption.] You really ought to be ashamed of yourself and I hope that your electorate hold you to account. I refer, by the way, to the hon. Member—the so-called honourable Member—for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant).

The price of children’s clothing has increased by 6.7% and the price of butter by 12%. Bus and coach fares have risen by 13% and train fares by 3.4%. Transport insurance is up by 12.6%, motor vehicle insurance by 13% and travel insurance by 10%. That is the reality for ordinary working people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

While inflation is making the cost of the weekly shop soar, real wages are falling. There was nothing in the Budget to address that. The rise in inflation and the squeeze on wages are creating a crisis for low-income earners. Between 2010 and 2016, official GDP per employee had risen by 3.5%, yet real wages are 1.1% lower, when adjusted for consumer prices index inflation. If inflation is calculated to include housing costs, real wages are down by 7.2%. That is the economic record of the Tory Government. The collapse of UK productivity growth has driven low growth and stagnant wages.

While many of my constituents and families across the UK are relying on credit cards to put food on the table, a different story is unfolding in the City. Under the Tory Government, boardroom pay has soared. From 2010 to 2016, the average remuneration for FTSE 100 chief executive officers almost doubled. The average remuneration of an executive director has doubled from £1.5 million to £3.1 million.

The inequality goes much deeper. European Commission figures reveal that the UK had the biggest increase in the EU’s gender pay gap in 2015. The difference in average hourly pay between male and female workers jumped from 19.7% in 2014 to 20.8% in 2015. In effect, women are working unpaid for more than two months a year compared with men.

The Government have not only driven thousands into poverty; they have failed to invest in building an inclusive economy fit for future generations. The legacy this Chancellor leaves is an economy that works only for the rich and the reckless. We need a Government that will create the circumstances to deliver inclusive, sustainable economic growth; a Government that will encourage investment, enhance innovation and drive up productivity and living standards; a Government that recognise that monetary and fiscal policy have to work in unison. The focus on monetary policy has driven up house prices and stocks and shares, but failed to drive investment in the real economy.

Back in 2009, quantitative easing was an obvious choice as part of the attempt to restore confidence and growth, provided that it was matched with fiscal measures, such as investing in our infrastructure and building capacity in our economy, with a focus on investment to improve efficiency. There was an opportunity to invest in the economy to kick-start growth and productivity. However, under the steer of this Government, there was investment to benefit the wealthy. In the end, that has done nothing but exacerbate the gap between rich and poor.

Even the Bank of England has recognised the negative effect of this policy. In 2012, it said that although quantitative easing had increased asset prices, it had disproportionately benefited the top 5% of households. Standard & Poor’s argued that—[Interruption.] I see the Chancellor waving his hands, but this is important and something for which he ultimately has to take responsibility. Standard & Poor’s argued last year that inflating asset prices had exacerbated the gap between rich and poor. It found that the wealthiest 10% of households held 56% of all net financial assets in 2008, and that by 2014 the proportion of the nation’s wealth in the hands of the richest 10% had increased to 65%.

It is easy to see why the Tories do not want to change this policy. Reducing inequality has never been one of their aims. The evidence is stark: quantitative easing has mostly benefited those who started with considerable wealth. The FTSE 100 was sitting at 3,805 on 18 March 2009, just ahead of the launch of the QE programme. Last night, the market closed at 7,411. That is growth of 95% in just over eight years. The Government have stuffed cash into the pockets of the wealthy, while ordinary folk have paid the price for austerity. The cry “There’s no money” flies in the face of the Government’s own agenda.

A further £70 billion was invested in QE after the Brexit vote, taking the programme to £435 billion. That is £435 billion that has been put on to our debt, with no plan for how it will be repaid. We could have invested in our infrastructure, for example by dealing with the demand for housing and dampening the rise in house prices at affordable levels. We could have invested in connectivity—in transport and in digital—to allow our citizens and businesses to compete, rather than being caught in the slow lane of transport snarl-ups and fighting to get decent broadband or mobile connectivity. Such investment in our people and infrastructure would have grown the economy and tax receipts, allowing us to cut the deficit. There would have been a payback. The Government could have supported businesses at the same time as supporting people. They cannot tell us that there is no money when they can invest an additional £70 billion in QE at the drop of hat. They must take responsibility and create the circumstances for inclusive growth and prosperity. Of course, taking responsibility is not something that this Government do.

Some £6.9 billion is lost to our schools and hospitals every year because the Government have failed to tackle aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion. I call on them to take tough new action to ensure that the richest in society and the biggest corporations pay the taxes they owe in full. They have chosen to cut public spending while protecting the super-rich—of course, the Tories are the party of the super-rich. If they will not take the action required, they should devolve the powers needed to tackle the issue to the Scottish Parliament.

When I asked the Chancellor last month about any assessment he had made of the interrelationship between monetary and fiscal policy, the answer I got was that monetary policy was the responsibility of the Bank of England. There was no regard for a link between the two. It is left to the Bank of England to shine a light on the failure of the Chancellor to engage in joined-up thinking. In written evidence to the Treasury Committee, the Bank of England admitted that the steep rises in house prices in the decade preceding the crisis, together with a fall in long-term interest rates, have led to

“a sharp rise in intergenerational dispersion of wealth benefiting in particular older people who had already entered the market before prices began to rise.”

The Government have avoided every opportunity to invest in young people. What hope—[Interruption.] The Chancellor says, “Rubbish”. I am afraid I am actually giving him facts from respected institutions, not least the Bank of England. Is the Chancellor really saying that the Bank of England is wrong as well? I think the Bank of England might have something to say about that.

What hope do millennials have to cling on to? Robbed of their housing allowance and lumbered with chronic student debt, this Government have gone out of their way to avoid investing in young people. The intergenerational wealth unfairness is creating the perfect storm for future generations. Research from the Resolution Foundation shows that today’s 27-year-olds are earning the same amount that 27-year-olds did a quarter of a century ago. A typical millennial has actually earned £8,000 less during their twenties than those in the preceding generation.

We have missed chance after chance to invest in inclusive growth opportunities. The Government have been the proverbial one-club golfer relying on monetary measures, but in a vacuum. Even the IFS has warned the Chancellor about his calculations. First of all we had George Osborne proclaim he wanted to balance the books by 2015. That did not happen. Now the current Chancellor wants to eliminate borrowing by the mid-2020s. But with Brexit set to hit the economy, even the IFS has called on him to abandon his fanciful fiscal targets. There is more uncertainty on forecasts now than ever before. The Chancellor himself told the Treasury Committee that a

“cloud of uncertainty is acting as a temporary damper, and we need to remove it as soon as possible”.

Well, there was nothing in the Budget today to remove it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am in a giving mood. I will give the Chancellor a bit of fundamental economic advice. End the suicidal flirtation with a no-deal scenario, give business something to invest in and work on keeping the UK in the single market. The stupidity and recklessness of some on the Government Front Bench who rode around in that famous red bus has to be the most damaging economic pledge in modern history. They said £350 million a week for the NHS. Well, they are silent on that now. The Foreign Secretary and Environment Secretary should listen up, because here are some home truths about the mess they have created: the Bank of England has confirmed that 75,000 jobs are at risk in the financial sector owing to Brexit; the London School of Economics has revealed that Scotland’s towns and cities could lose up to £30 billion over five years; the Fraser of Allander Institute revealed that Brexit would cost Scotland up to 80,000 jobs and see wages fall by £2,000 a head per year; and now the Chancellor is planning for a no deal—a complete catastrophe which is unfolding on his watch. He knows how devastating such a path would be for the UK economy. He has given Departments £250 million to carry out work in preparation. To put that into context, that would pay for 11,553 new starter nurses, teachers or police officers.

It is not just the spending to fund Brexit that is costing communities, however. Leaving the EU will cut off the financial social funds we have benefited from for so long. This will be devastating for communities where poverty and destitution at the hands of the Tory austerity policies have seen volunteers pick up the pieces. Although as the UK haemorrhages EU funding and the Chancellor proclaims austerity is essential to save, he did manage to find £1 billion for the DUP—quite remarkable. The Chancellor found £1 billion for the Northern Irish Executive to spend on devolved areas, but no additional funds were provided to Scotland or any other part of the UK. Cash for votes—not very honourable at all.

And what use are the Scottish Conservatives, who pledged to work as a bloc to protect Scotland’s interests? That was their chance to shine: a golden opportunity to show they were prepared to put politics aside and stand up for Scotland. But no, party loyalty prevailed and now Scotland is being overlooked in this dodgy deal. This money cannot be processed until the discussions have concluded on the appropriateness of the way in which the UK Government decided to provide the additional financial support. The Barnett formula rules mean that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are entitled to an extra £2.9 billion and £1.67 billion respectively as a result of the deal. Where are the Scottish Tories standing up for that £2.9 billion that Scotland deserves? Where are the calls from the Scottish Tories for this UK Government to match the deal from Northern Ireland? They have been found wanting.

Year after year, the UK Government continue to let down our world-class oil and gas industry in the north-east of Scotland. Two years ago, the Conservatives boasted about the creation of a new oil and gas ambassador, who would

“promote the North Sea around the world and boost inward investment”.

How embarrassing, then, for the Chancellor that the role, two years later, has yet to be filled. It seems that the Chancellor and his Cabinet colleagues have simply forgotten about our North sea industry once again. Despite the Chancellor’s tight grip restraining Scotland’s economic potential, the SNP in Scotland has delivered for our people.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to make speeches in which they completely ignore the contents of the Budget that the Chancellor has just delivered?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That was definitely not a point of order and the right hon. Lady knows it. She has provided a running commentary all the way through. I think I have heard more than enough for the time being and I want to get to the end of the speech by the leader of the SNP.

Duties of Customs

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend raises an important point that goes to the heart of the Bill. This is a framework Bill, so it will allow us to make sure that we can deliver wherever the negotiations land. It does not presuppose any particular outcome from the negotiations; its purpose is to enable the outcome of the negotiations to be put into effect.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I have made it very clear to people in Broxtowe that I believe in our continuing membership of the customs union and the single market. Can the Minister help me with this? Will the measure be able to cope with all eventualities, including our staying de facto as a member of the customs union through a period of transition? Could we—if everything goes the way I would like—even stay a member of the customs union under this Bill, if that were the will of the Government and the House?

[Mel Stride]

The Bill deals with our leaving the European Union, which means, as a simple matter of law, that we will be leaving the customs union. However, it does indeed allow for a transition period in which there could be a very close customs association with the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. This is part of the whole pattern and process by which this Government accrue and accrue powers. Government Members do not seem to grasp that concept, but the fact is that the Government continue to pull powers to themselves and do not devolve them to any of the other nations.

[Anna Soubry]

I think the hon. Gentleman is really struggling on this. It makes eminent sense that the Government should have the powers to deal with all eventualities. Perhaps he could help this place by explaining the Labour party’s current policy on the customs union. Is the Labour party in favour of us remaining in the customs union de facto as we go into transition, or is it against that? Is it in favour of our staying in the customs union by way of a final deal, which I think is an eminently good idea?

[Peter Dowd]

I will tell the right hon. Lady what we are in favour of: parliamentary scrutiny. It was John Bright who reportedly coined the phrase “the Mother of Parliaments”, which is completely alien to Conservative Members and, obviously, to the right hon. Lady. I suspect that he, along with many other Radical and Conservative parliamentarians, would be turning in his grave at the idea that a Government living on borrowed time have the arrogance, hubris and others would say bluster to treat Parliament in the fashion this Government are intent on doing.

Conservative Members have to ask themselves this question: did their constituents send them to this House to acquiesce is the systematic stripping away of parliamentary scrutiny, which is not in the national interest, or did they send them here to hold the Government to account, regardless of their party allegiance? The Minister should take seriously the concerns I have raised, as many others inside and outside the House have, about the fast and loose approach the Government are taking to parliamentary scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I rise not only to support those excellent amendments, but to make it clear that I shall be voting for them. That is because I made it clear in the run-up to the general election in June that I would continue to make the case for the customs union, the single market and the positive benefits of immigration to everybody in Broxtowe. Having been returned to this place, admittedly with a diminished majority but with an extra 1,800 votes, I take the firm view that to be true to the words I have said and to my conscience, I am going to vote for these amendments. It is an absolute pleasure to follow some of the excellent contributions we have heard tonight, notably those of the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and somewhere equally pleasant—

[Tom Brake]

Wallington.

[Anna Soubry]

Exactly—somewhere equally pleasant.

The pleasure I have in speaking in this debate is primarily this: the fact that we are actually having a debate and, moreover, we are actually having a vote. We are providing this House and this place at last with an opportunity to have a real and meaningful say in the future of our country, which has been denied within this place ever since 23 June 2016. If only the Government had at that time—I can understand why in many ways they could not—looked to build a consensus and to find what elements united us far more than had divided us during the EU referendum debate, we would not be in the unholy mess we are undoubtedly in today. As this Brexit reality or nightmare begins to dawn increasingly on the people of this country, we see that this scenario of either deal or no deal is not the real option facing the British people. We are being painted the idea of the hard Brexit as something that we should prepare for, and although it is right of the Government to be responsible and examine that, the reality is that we are more likely than not to not get a deal.

Not only are all the things the Prime Minister promised and said she did not want—no deal—likely, but in quarters of this place some people are positively urging and welcoming that. I find it utterly perverse and bizarre that my party, the party that has always been so proud to be the party of business, is increasingly being seen as the party that no longer represents business in this country. Let us be absolutely clear: the overwhelming majority of businesses, not just in Broxtowe, but the length and breadth of this country, do not want a hard Brexit. This is not just a choice between a hard Brexit—that no deal—or a bad deal, because there is a third option, one that has not even been debated and until tonight has certainly not been voted on. I refer to this third way; tonight we are talking about the customs union, but in my view this also includes the single market.

I am not going to repeat the excellent arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, but I absolutely endorse all the arguments he made and the interventions that he took from other hon. Members who also see the value of the customs union. It delivers what I think the British people want. Overwhelmingly the majority of people in this country are thoroughly cheesed off with the whole darned thing; they are fed up with Brexit. They are fed up with the arguments and the squabbling. I am going to be blunt about it: they are getting fed up with a Government who have still not worked out what their policy is for the transitional deal or for the final deal. Some might say that that is shameful, given all the time that has progressed since we jumped, as I fear we did, into triggering article 50. Some of us—my goodness, we know how we got all the attacks for having said this— did caution the Government, saying, “Please don’t trigger article 50 until at least the Germans have had their elections and that stable Government have been put in place.” I get no pleasure in saying how right we were to put that caution forward. The British people are looking at all of this, they are fed up to the back teeth with it and they want us to get on with it. I do not demur from it—we should get on with it—but not in the way that a small ideological group of people, mainly in my own party, I am sorry to say, are now urging the Government to do: by leaping off the cliff and getting no deal.

[Ian Murray]

When the history books are written about this period of time, the right hon. Lady’s name will be prominent for trying to pull her own Government back from the brink, so we all appreciate the work she is doing on this. We have heard all the arguments tonight, and I, too, am delighted we are debating the customs union. The Government are suggesting a frictionless and seamless border and frictionless and seamless customs arrangements, so does she agree that the best thing they could do to deliver that is to stay in the darned thing?

[Anna Soubry]

I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more. That is what the people need to understand now: there is this third option. There is this other way of getting a Brexit. We would be out of the European Union, so we would have satisfied the 52% of voters on that, but we would deliver what everybody wants, which is the best possible Brexit that is in the interests of everybody in this country, with the economy, jobs and prosperity right at its heart. This would solve the problem that Northern Ireland faces and that Ireland faces, because we would keep the customs union.

[Lady Hermon]

I am deeply disquieted by the fact that prominent Conservative Members are seemingly in favour of no deal as we leave the EU, because today’s Belfast Telegraph carries a report saying that republican organisations in Northern Ireland and Sinn Féin are hoping that there is a hard Brexit. They are exploiting that idea to then campaign for a border poll to try to rip Northern Ireland away from the rest of the UK. That is extremely concerning to me, as a Unionist.

[Anna Soubry]

I listen to the wise words of the hon. Lady, as she, more than many, knows exactly the serious consequences of getting this wrong. It is not just about trade and the economy in Northern Ireland; it is also about the politics. I take the point that there is a huge danger of abandoning the customs union and going for some ghastly hard border, which plays right into the hands of Sinn Féin, the IRA and all the rest of them.

I am not going to speak for much longer, because I agree with so much of what has been said by the three Members I particularly picked out and by the hon. Lady. I am old enough to remember my father having a car and when we asked what had happened with it and why did we not have it, we were told, “It is down in the garage and we are waiting for a part. It hasn’t cleared customs.” Some other Members will remember that, too. The terrible problem with much of this debate is that so many people are so much younger than I am and they have never experienced this. People like me are old enough to remember the days of having to have our suitcases opened at customs control, but this is lost on huge swathes of our population. Yet here we are actually beginning to plan for a return to those bad, dark days when we were the sick man of Europe.

So we need to stay in the customs union for the sake of our economy and because it will deliver what the people want: we will get on with this and we will make progress. We can take it, because it is there on a shelf and we can take it off the shelf. We may have to tweak it here and there but it will get us on and it will deliver Brexit, and it will ensure that we can then look at these huge other domestic problems we face.

I was going to say something else, but I have no doubt completely forgotten it. It matters not, though, because these are important matters. [Interruption.] Ah, I know what it is. As I said the other day, history will record the profound irony, which cannot be right, that the overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this place agree that we should be in the customs union and the single market. The only reason why that is not even on the table anymore—this is an uncomfortable truth—is because, I fear, my party is in hock to 30 to 35 hard, ideologically driven Brexiteers. The British people will not thank my party unless we stand up for business and for the economy. We must deliver Brexit but also make sure that we deliver for the British people.

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Lady talks about the extremists in her own party; does she share my horror that a former Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union is planning to make a speech tomorrow morning in which he actually advocates our dropping off the cliff and going on to WTO rules, and in which he will tell the Prime Minister that she needs to take forward a no-deal Brexit? What an absurdity!

[Anna Soubry]

I do not like to speculate or comment on things about which I do not know, but that is terribly interesting.

Finally, I just need to ask: why are we leaving the customs union? Apparently, we are leaving the customs union so that we can make trade deals with other countries. It is the stuff of complete fantasy. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East rightly pointed out, we already have this fantastic arrangement: the customs union and single market, the biggest in the whole world. We are turning away from that, causing this dreadful self-inflicted wound, looking into other places and dreaming of deals that will never be done. Was there ever a better example than if we look to America? Look at Bombardier, and look at the most protectionist, anti-free-trade President that that nation has probably ever seen. That is the reality. There is no wonderland ahead of us; what there is ahead is real economic damage to our country unless we stay in the customs union. That is why I shall vote for the amendments tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

That is grounds for huge concern, because these trade negotiators will be up against expert teams that have been carrying out such negotiations for many years, and this is not just about the EU deal. If it is the British Government’s intention, as one of their first options, to take on the United States in trade negotiations, I would advise them to take the advice of the experts who told the Exiting the European Union Committee in the previous Parliament that the UK should perhaps look to smaller countries for their initial trade negotiations, rather than something as powerful as the US trade lobby.

The EU customs union’s numerous existing international trade deals have already have been mentioned. Those deals cover more than 50 countries, and several other trade negotiations are ongoing. A third of all EU members’ trade outside the EU is with those countries. When the Department for International Trade was set up and the Secretary of State for International Trade answered oral questions for the first time, the first question I asked him was what would happen to all the trade deals that we already enjoy around the world. His view was that they were going to be renegotiated, seamlessly, but I fear that that showed extreme naivety on his part. Why would those countries agree to the same terms and conditions with a far smaller trading bloc, which is what the UK will be, as they agreed with the EU customs union? Surely they will want to renegotiate so that they look after and promote their own interests, rather than just accept what is on the table.

The British Government’s intended policy of leaving the single market and customs union is already having a huge impact on Welsh people’s standard of living. The Centre for Economic Performance has calculated that Brexit has already cost the average worker in Wales £448 annually, with its effect on wages and the higher cost of living disproportionately affecting people in Wales—and that is before we actually leave the EU.

With 90% of Welsh food exports destined for the EU customs union, a reckless Brexit could be disastrous for the communities I serve in rural Carmarthenshire. In a recent meeting with sheep farmers, I was amazed to find out that 50% of their produce was sold domestically, with 50% sold in Europe. Domestic markets will not be able to fill those gaps if we lose unfettered access to European markets.

It is also worth concentrating on some of the tariffs associated with food products. The average tariff on dairy products is 38%. For meat products, we are talking in the region of 58% to 70%. That would clearly make our food products destined for the EU completely uncompetitive. Farmers are preparing for 2019-20 at the moment, so they need answers now. They cannot wait for a protracted trade negotiation.

I also want to concentrate on the impact of leaving the customs union on the border between the British state and the Republic of Ireland. Much has already been said on this matter tonight and it has also had considerable media coverage, not least because the border on the island of Ireland is one of the three sticking points that need to be resolved before we reach first base in our negotiations with the European Union. Despite the fact that both sides have focused on this matter since the beginning of the negotiations, we are no nearer a solution. Indeed, press reports over the weekend seemed to indicate that things are getting even more difficult.

The British Government have miscalculated the resolve of the European Union. The EU’s overriding priority in these negotiations is maintaining the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Therefore, in choosing to leave those frameworks, the UK will become a third country—in other words, a competitor. In those circumstances, we will not get a “have your cake and eat it” solution. As the right hon. Member for Broxtowe said, the British Government are living in fantasy land. There will be no such thing as a special partnership. If we are not part of the single market or the customs union, the best thing that we can hope for is a free trade agreement similar to that of Canada. A welcome development in recent months is the fact that both Labour and the Government have agreed that a transition is a good idea, but the key question is what happens at the end of the two years.

[Anna Soubry]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reality is that we will not get a great deal because the EU does not want to give us a great deal? If it gives us a great deal, it would have to give one to a whole load of other people who might decide to leave the European Union. Although I am not saying that it wants to punish us—I do not think that it does—it does have a responsibility to keep the European Union together.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The right hon. Lady captures my sentiments exactly. By deciding to leave the single market or the customs union, we effectively become a competitor —a third country. On that basis, the overriding priority of the European Union is to protect its interests. A lot of the problems that are arising in our negotiations, as we heard from the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), could be dealt with if we said that we wanted to stay in the single market and the customs union.

The transition period is a welcome development, although I am slightly unclear about whether the British Government and indeed the Labour party are arguing for being in “the” customs union or being in “a” customs union with the European Union, because they are diametrically opposed. Even if we did decide to stay within the single market and the customs union for the transition period, the key question arises of what happens at the end of that two-year period. If we are to have a free trade agreement such as that with Canada, it will take far longer than two years to negotiate.

With reference to the border on the island of Ireland, Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator on behalf of the European Union, has said that the EU will not tolerate the UK using this soft border between the six counties and the Republic as a way of avoiding the trade consequences of leaving the customs union. That is the crux of the problem. Even if the British Government’s position stands, there will be two types of borders between the Irish Republic and the British state. There will be a soft border on the island of Ireland and a hard border on the maritime divide between Ireland and Wales. Inevitably, that will have a huge impact on Welsh ports.

We heard earlier about the huge tailbacks that we can expect at Dover and some of the Channel Island ports. Welsh ports will face exactly the same situation, and the infrastructure is not there to deal with such challenges. That might lead to business being diverted away from the traditional Wales-Ireland trade routes to trade routes between Belfast and Scotland and England. Therefore, instead of businesses flowing between Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, Rosslare and Cork to Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke, they will be flowing between Belfast and other parts of the UK. We must remember that the Welsh ports sustain thousands of jobs. This is all an unintended consequence of the British Government’s muddled policy.

I want to finish with a point about the impact of leaving the customs union on the UK’s constitutional arrangements. International trade is a reserved matter. However, trade policy could have massive ramifications on the ability of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Governments to deliver on devolved competences. For instance, if the British Government were to allow food products of a lower standard to enter the UK, it would obviously have an impact on Welsh agricultural policy, not least our ability to export to our main European market in the customs union. If the British Government, for whatever reason, open up public services to further private interference, which has been the concern of many experts in this field, it would fundamentally undermine the ability of the devolved Governments to deliver competences within their public services for which they have responsibility. There is probably a whole range of other problems that I have not even considered yet.

In recognition of those potential problems ahead, the trade White Paper does talk about reconstituting the Board of International Trade with representatives from all four constituent parts. However, that does not go anywhere near far enough. In my view, trade policy would have to become an area of shared competence between the British and the devolved Governments. Within the EU customs union, EU trade deals need the endorsement of all member states and even some other governments, as we saw with the issue of Wallonia during the comprehensive economic and trade agreement discussions. It would be absolutely incredible to me if trade policy was the sole preserve of Westminster, with the interests of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland neglected, and our devolved and democratic Governments and Parliaments not allowed to have a say on that. In my view, Brexit will make a new UK constitutional settlement inevitable. Inter-governmental networks within the British state will need to be formalised and strengthened. If we fail to do that, every trade deal could be a constitutional crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s points. I can indeed see his constituency across the waters of the Bristol channel. I will come on to say something specifically about the aerospace industry, which is crucial not only for his constituents, but for many of mine and for the whole of Wales.

Our report made very clear the costs involved. It highlighted the fact that an Institute for Government report has stated that the introduction of customs declarations on EU trade could cost traders between £4 billion and £9 billion a year, based on its various estimates, including an expected 200 million additional declarations after Brexit. Mark Corby has estimated that the additional cost is likely to be between £19 billion and £26 billion a year, as a result of losing the customs and trade facilitation and duty benefits that EU membership offers.

We must also look at the costs of putting in place all the infrastructure. We have heard much discussion today about infrastructure, whether at Dover or at other ports. I am thinking in particular of Welsh ports, especially in relation to the maritime border between Wales and the Republic of Ireland, which is important to get right. This is not only about the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but about the maritime border between Wales and the Republic. Jon Thompson, the chief executive of HMRC, has told the Public Accounts Committee that HMRC estimates the costs at between £300 million and £450 million in the scenario of the UK leaving the EU without a deal and that between 3,000 and 5,000 additional staff would have to be recruited.

These are huge sums, and it is very important that the public understand the costs, the risks and the practicalities. However they voted in the referendum and whatever form of Brexit they prefer, these are the sorts of facts that we need to put before the House and the country when we are taking decisions about the nature of our future relationship with our European partners.

I said that I would talk about the aerospace industry, and I draw attention to the relevant declarations in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Airbus has been very clear that its work involves 80,000 trips between the UK and EU countries a year, which relies on a seamless flow of goods and people, and that removing the seamless nature of that will be dangerous for its business and its prospects. Airbus and companies in its supply chain currently collect limited data for customs needs, but on the assumption that the UK becomes a third country, it would need to produce a customs declaration on wings and satellite components moving from the UK to the EU27. One early assumption is that this would require as many as 50 datasets for declarations, including for country of origin.

At the moment, the Airbus transport aircraft fly from Toulouse, Hamburg and Broughton with only two hours between landing, loading and departure, but should they need to await additional customs inspectors or paperwork, that would lead to delays and have an impact on its delivery schedule. As many Members will be aware, there are heavy commercial penalties for missed deliveries and delays in parts and equipment. This is not just a trifling matter: Airbus spends £5 billion a year in its UK supply chain. We are looking at the problems of transferring small parts and equipment back and forth, which has an impact not only on Airbus directly as a company, but on all those involved in its supply chain, which stretches much further than the thousands it employs directly.

[Anna Soubry]

Does the hon. Gentleman know of any Government plan to solve this problem for Airbus? I think this would be fatal to such a fantastic project, which completely relies on all these different components moving right across the European Union so frictionlessly. Does he know whether anybody has come up with an alternative?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not aware of any alternative. Indeed, we can sense growing frustration in the country at the moment about the lack of such information. In fact, Airbus has come out in public today to make very clear its view that we need a “lengthy transition”, in its own words, and it has made a very clear statement about what it wants if it is to keep its business going.

I have mentioned Rolls-Royce. I was recently visited by Unite’s shop stewards from its manufacturing facilities in Derby, who were very clear about the implications for them. Simon Hemmings, the chief negotiator for Rolls-Royce staff, said:

“If we are not in the customs union there will be job losses. If we have a hard Brexit, the foundations we have built…for the next generation of engines will not be built upon. They will be built elsewhere.”

That is absolutely clear: some aerospace parts cross the channel five times as they move along the various assembly lines in factories in both the UK and continental Europe. That is just one example, one industry that contributes an incredible amount in terms of high-skill, high-tech jobs not only to Wales, but to south-west England, Derby and more widely. We ignore the concerns of those businesses at our peril.

The Home Affairs Committee was clear about the implications—for example, concerns about IT systems, the lead times needed to train new customs officials and the worries about whether the Home Office, which maintains Border Force, which would carry out many of the customs checks on behalf of HMRC, plans only 300 extra staff, even though HMRC says between 3,000 are 5,000 extra staff are needed. Where is the planning going on? Who is in charge of the process within the Government? Whatever the final scenario, it is crucial that we have trained, skilled staff in place. It is crucial to our security that staff who are there to police our borders, checking passports and other identity documents and people who may be involved in illegal activities, are not diverted into dealing with customs backlogs. One can imagine a situation in which we crash out with no deal, leading to queues—Operation Stack on steroids—and the Government suddenly having to drag staff back and forth, with delays at borders and delays at customs. If we do not plan and get the staff in place, we will have serious problems.

The report is clear that, given the lead times for changes in staffing, technology and infrastructure, Border Force, HMRC and other public sector agencies need to clarify rapidly whether and what changes will be required for transition, and crucially, how much they will cost. It is only right that the British public and Parliament see the costs of a no-deal Brexit, or a hard Brexit versus some of the other options, such as staying in the customs union.

Our report states that

“If no deal is reached on customs arrangements, it will result in all those involved in customs in the UK experiencing a huge amount of change in a very short time, with a vast increase required in capacity and processes at the border, with the risk of either significant delays at points of entry, or of inadequate checks taking place.”

The Minister said earlier that cliff-edge changes were in no one’s interest and spoke of a two-year implementation period and various plans that he will produce. I hope that if, as I suspect, we hear from the more extreme elements on the Government Benches saying, “Get on with a no-deal Brexit. Let’s fall out of these arrangements,” he will be the first to condemn and criticise those voices. To do otherwise would be at odds with his statements today.

These matters are fundamental to the future of our economy, our jobs and our ability to trade with the rest of the world. It is important that they are given due scrutiny and that we understand the full costs. I commend the many speeches that have been made in this debate.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely central point to what we will be asking for today.

Not only does the behaviour of a few damage trust in the system as a whole, but it damages the public services our taxes are used to fund. At a time when the NHS is under such pressure, when public sector workers have had their wages held down for years and our schools are struggling to deliver the best start for all our children, for the super-rich and the powerful to think that they can opt out of their duty to contribute fairly through paying taxes is completely and utterly and totally immoral and wrong, and it is our responsibility to put an end to it.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I have been very helpfully provided with some facts that I think should be put to the House. I am told that since 2010 the Government have secured £160 billion from tackling avoidance, evasion and non-compliance and £2.8 billion from offshore tax evaders, and invested £1.8 billion in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to tackle avoidance and evasion. I am very proud of this record. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is an excellent record from a Conservative Government? How does it compare with the record of the Labour Government that she has always been so keen to support?

Paradise Papers

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government have been at the forefront of clamping down on international tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance through the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project, which we have been in the vanguard of, and through the work on common reporting standards that we have been introducing among our Crown dependencies and overseas territories. He will find that we are no slouches when it comes to grappling with the items that he raises.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country is now leading the world on tackling tax avoidance? How does the action of consecutive Conservative Chancellors compare with the non-action of consecutive Labour Chancellors?

[Mel Stride]

As my right hon. Friend knows, one of the measures of how on top or otherwise the country is of its tax affairs is the tax gap, which is at an historic low of just 6%. Under the last Labour Government in 2005, the tax gap was 8%. If it were at the same level today as it was under Labour, we would be £11.8 billion of tax short—enough to employ every policeman and woman in England and Wales.

Finance Bill

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

As I am sure you agree, Mr Speaker, we all love a familiar tune that we can hum or whistle along to, the bars and notes of which come effortlessly to mind, so I imagine that a warm feeling of familiarity washed over all Members when they heard the tune being played by the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). It was the familiar one about the Conservatives not taking tax seriously, being on the side of tax dodgers and so on. We have heard it so many times.

It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman using this gargantuan Finance Bill as a stage from which to play that tune. It brought to mind that wonderful 1970s Morecambe and Wise sketch with André Previn; I do not know whether you are familiar with it, Mr Speaker. Eric Morecambe is at the piano; discordant notes are flooding from it, and André Previn says, “Stop, stop! You’re playing all the wrong notes.” Eric Morecambe replies, “No, sweetheart; I’m playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.” That was an awful accent; I apologise. The hon. Gentleman was not playing the right notes, and definitely not in the right order. Some of the claims made by Labour Front Benchers are built on sand. Far from being on the side of tax dodgers and tax avoiders, this party in government has put measures in place that have generated an additional £160 billion of tax revenue since 2010, and the Bill will, if enacted, bring in additional billions of pounds to the Treasury, so the hon. Gentleman was singing the wrong notes.

Yes, moves to close the tax gap were initiated by a Labour Government—it would be churlish not to concede that—but far from preventing or rowing back on the closing of the tax gap, this Government have continued the pressure to make sure that the gap between the taxes that should be collected and the taxes that are collected continues to decrease. As a Conservative, I am proud of this Conservative Government’s role in ensuring that the people who should pay taxes do, and pay at the appropriate level.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was absolutely spot on when he said that it is corrosive when we start blurring the definitions of tax avoidance and tax evasion. When we talk about people who act in a financially pragmatic way, completely within the law, in the same way that we talk about conmen and criminals, it sends a massively corrosive message, at a time when the world is getting smaller, in terms of where people can base themselves and their business.

While it is perhaps fun for Opposition Members to vilify people who transact their business internationally and can choose where in the world to rest their head at night and to make them sound like—to be topical—a Halloween villain, that is counterproductive. Although each individual utterance will make little difference, they combine and build to create the background music of intolerance of international business and successful people that will ultimately mean their locating somewhere else. Rather than getting the tax income from them that this country deserves, a different country will generate those tax revenues. A pound—or a euro or dollar—that is taxed somewhere else in the world is a pound that cannot be used by this Government to pay for the public services that we value and the public servants who deserve our thanks and reward.

It may feel superficially pleasant to see an international business, an international business person or a non-domicile flee from these shores. People may say, “If they do not want to be here, let them go.” It is a nice soundbite but ultimately it is massively counterproductive to the job that we should be doing as parliamentarians and that the Government should be doing in office.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I am enjoying the very good speech that my hon. Friend is making. Obviously, I do not want to get into a Brexit debate. Heaven forbid that he and I fall out in some way, or even worse do our impersonations of bygone sketches, which he clearly could not remember because he was not born then, but, on a serious point, does he share my concern that we are already seeing great businesses looking at relocating as the time comes for us to leave the EU, along with individuals who do not feel welcome in our great country?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. We may not necessarily agree on the Brexit decision or on its impact on international businesses and British businesses that might be international, but it is fair for her to highlight the fact that we should do nothing that gives businesses cause for concern. It would be unfair to suggest that the decision to leave the EU has no impact on business decisions. As someone who campaigned for Brexit, I have an additional duty to prove her wrong. I know that she is of such a generous nature that, if in our dotage we are sharing a glass of wine, looking back at the events in the immediate aftermath of Brexit and I were to be proved right, she would be more than willing to concede that point. However, we have a duty to give businesses as much confidence as possible about being based in the UK. Having a tax regime that supports business and enterprise is an important part of doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

As a number of my hon. Friends have mentioned, people who have offshore trusts are not breaking the law. Indeed, it is wholly unfair to suggest that they are. We should recognise the fact that they are reputable business people who are bringing wealth to our country in a totally legitimate way. In Committee, the Minister pointed out that many people had put their affairs in order by setting up overseas trusts before they moved to the UK and it would be wrong for us to go after money that had been secured in that fashion.

[Anna Soubry]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, although I would be intrigued to find out, perhaps after the debate, why Brentwood—I nearly said “of all places”, but I am sure that it is a wonderful place—was judged to be so favourable for women. But we are getting away from the Finance Bill and the important points that he is making about the economy. Does he agree that it is critical in any tax system that the balance is right? Yes, taxpayers need to pay the right and proper amount, but we know that if we start to be too onerous, people will exploit loopholes, meaning that tax revenues will begin to drop. Does he agree that it is under this Conservative Government that we have begun to get that balance absolutely right? People do not resent paying their taxes and revenues are rising because we have a good and fair system.

[Alex Burghart]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. She can rest assured that she is always welcome in Brentwood. There will always be a place next to me in the teashop where we can sit down to discuss exactly why Brentwood is such a wonderful place for women to work, raise their families and be part of the community.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct that we have to get the balance right if we are to maximise the tax take for the Treasury, and it is only through that tax take that we will be able to fund our world-class public services. An attempt to do anything more would undoubtedly mean that less would be available for our police services, health service and education system. Our constituents—our citizens—would then all suffer, so it is absolutely essential that we get the balance right. I do not believe that we do that if we actively discourage successful, wealthy business people from bringing their money here so that they can invest in our country. As my right hon. Friend points out, it is by getting the balance right that the Treasury, under the great guidance of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and his predecessors, has managed to bring in an extra £160 billion since 2010 and to narrow the tax gap to an historically low level. That is a great achievement.

--- Later in debate ---

We must not drive away the additional moneys that will come to our country to fund our doctors, nurses, paramedics, the Army, police and all the other wonderful public services that we expect to be supported. An extra £1.6 billion will come as a consequence of the changes proposed in the Bill. My right hon. Friend also spoke well about the importance of our tax system being competitive, and we briefly touched on an important point that was raised by many other Members: how do we term these individuals?

[Anna Soubry]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important point to make about non-doms is that the idea that they are all multimillionaires, if not billionaires, is an absolute fallacy? Many non-doms quite properly have that status, but the idea that they are fat cats or rich people with oodles of money who are up to dodgy dealings is an absolute myth. Many of them are actually of modest means, but invariably those of more substantial means are great entrepreneurs and we need them in our country arguably more than ever before.

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right and pre-empts the point that I was about to make, which is that it is quite wrong of the Opposition to castigate all non-domiciled individuals in this country and to characterise them as tax dodgers. In fact, the hon. Member for Bootle made the point that there are over 100,000 non-doms in the United Kingdom. The vast majority of them do not have lots of overseas assets or may have no overseas assets; they are not opening up trusts and putting assets in them. They simply come over here, sometimes for a couple of years or so, to work and contribute to our economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are out of time, but the temptation to hear remaining colleagues is, frankly, just too powerful.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

The Chancellor, in his efforts to secure a good Brexit deal and a transition period, has the confidence and support not only of Members on the Government Benches, but from across the whole of British business, including in Broxtowe—unlike the Labour party, which inspires complete fear with the Marxist mayhem it would put into policy if elected into government. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is in the best interests of British business to secure a transition period as a matter of some urgency, and will he do all he can to get that transition period?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, British business has made it clear that it wants the earliest possible certainty about the implementation of interim arrangements. It has also made it very clear that it does not want any Marxist mayhem.

Finance Bill

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend raises an important point on business rates, which are very important as one of the key components of costs for businesses. In 2016 we announced a £9 billion package to ensure that business rates were not too onerous for small businesses, and we have of course this year announced a further £400 million-plus to make sure that further funds are available to those who require it.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he share my concern that the shadow Chancellor does not seem to be present—although he is active on his Twitter account? Does my right hon. Friend know why the shadow Chancellor is not here to hear this excellent speech? Is he stirring up insurrection and urging people to engage in unlawful strike action?

[Mel Stride]

As usual, my right hon. Friend makes some very insightful observations. I have no news, I am afraid, as to where the shadow Chancellor is. Perhaps he has his nose deep in the little red book, but my advice to him is to read my speech and to learn, because there is much to learn from what I have already said and what I am about to share with the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is a hero.

[Anna Soubry]

I would make exactly the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). How many Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), voted in favour of last night’s Bill?

[Peter Dowd]

Conservative Members acquiesced in their droves, and it is a shame—it is absolutely shocking—that they did so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady makes a valiant attempt to gloss over a £100 billion black hole in her party’s costings, which would obviously have a massive impact on the public finances. That is a key concern, and it is central to what the Finance Bill is about.

[Anna Soubry]

Does my hon. Friend agree it is undoubtedly the case that millions of young people were left in no doubt that if they voted Labour and then, unfortunately, a Labour Government were returned, that Government would have written off student debt? Labour Members did nothing during the general election to disabuse young people of what was undoubtedly a con.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point—she is completely correct. It is exactly my recollection that the people of Britain were sold a false prospectus by the Labour party.

Economy and Jobs

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The argument we heard was that corporation tax cuts would lead to a large-scale increase in business investment in our economy, but business investment fell last year for the first time since 2009. It remains lower than that in the rest of the G7 countries, with the exception of Italy. Corporations are now sitting on more than £580 billion of earned income that they are not investing. Some have been exposed as using that earned income in share buy-outs to boost performance statistics and therefore boost bonuses. That is the product of the corporation tax cuts.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

In due course.

Let us look at how seven years of austerity has contributed to the grotesque and widening levels of growth inequality in the UK. A report last year by Credit Suisse found that the richest 1% of people in the UK now own almost one quarter of the country’s wealth. The Sunday Times rich list told us that the richest 1,000 families in the UK had more than doubled their wealth since the financial crash.

[Anna Soubry]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, because of Conservative policies, some 4 million people in this country who are at the lower end of the wage scale no longer pay any tax at all? This is the party that reduces taxes for the less well-off.

[John McDonnell]

It is a party that has used the taxation system to cut corporation tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and the bank levy, which has meant a redistribution from the poor to the wealthy.

Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

What we need to fund our NHS is a strong economy and a Government who have the political will to make the commitment that we have made to a £10 billion post-inflation increase in NHS spending. It is very nice to have a contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I do not know whether that is a precursor of the Liberal Democrat manifesto for the next general election—we shall wait to see.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I commend the Chancellor for his statement. As somebody who was self-employed for many years, I know that the current system undoubtedly needs reform, in terms of contributions and benefits, so I look forward to Matthew Taylor’s report. Given that so many of the self-employed are sole traders and micro business owners, may I urge the Chancellor to look at the great work that Angela Knight has done on how the whole system could be improved? I am very happy to have a meeting with one of his junior Ministers, if he cannot have any such meeting himself, to discuss that further.

[Mr Hammond]

Angela Knight is the chairman of the Office of Tax Simplification, and we will of course seek its advice in this matter. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.