Finance (No. 4) Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

No, I will make some progress, because, as my hon. Friend also said, and as the House knows, the Government have already set out plans to reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 23%, but this year’s Finance Bill goes even further for precisely the reasons that he gave.

Clauses 5 and 6 will reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 22% by 2014—a headline rate that is dramatically lower than that of our competitors, the lowest in the G7 and the fourth lowest in the G20.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

On that point, it is incredibly important that the Government are reducing the rate of corporation tax. That is great news for British business. However, British business pays corporation tax. Should not we take proper action against multinationals that rip off our country and do not pay proper taxes, and ensure that they pay a fair share of tax, like every British business, so that we have a level tax playing field for all companies?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for our measures on corporation tax. The fact that they have been welcomed not just by hon. Members, but by the CBI and a range of business organisations—and, indeed, that they have been shown to increase business investment—will help this country retain its international competitiveness, which declined markedly when the Labour party was in government.

My hon. Friend is right that we must deal with tax avoidance by companies, and there are a number of measures in the Bill that are precisely aimed at ensuring that businesses pay their fair share of tax, which I am sure he would wish to support. Furthermore, through clause 180, we are introducing vital reforms to the controlled foreign companies rules, and, through clause 19, a patent box to allow UK businesses to operate in an ever-more globalised world. Hopefully, we will encourage some of the businesses to which he refers to return to the UK. The latter measure has already secured a major investment in this country by a major chemicals company.

As well as creating the competitive conditions for enterprise to thrive, we must ensure that businesses have the support they need to seize the opportunities in the recovery. That is why we are taking action in the Bill to support the small businesses, the start-ups and the entrepreneurs that are critical to creating new jobs in the recovery. Clauses 39 and 40 increase the annual investment limit for enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts to £5 million. In that spirit, through clause 28, we are introducing a new scheme—the seed enterprise investment scheme—to encourage further investment in small, start-up companies, which are the kind of companies this country needs more of as the recovery continues. Those are significant steps to encouraging new growth, galvanising new sectors, and broadening access to finance for UK business, helping to rebalance our economy away from its over-reliance on one sector and one region.

We are committed to supporting a private sector recovery right across the UK. Clause 44 introduces a new, enhanced capital allowance regime for businesses in seven enterprise zones in England, three in Scotland and one in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I believe that a temporary cut in VAT back down to 17.5% and a national insurance holiday for all small businesses taking on new workers are the way to put the economy back on track to recovery.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

How would the hon. Lady pay for those pledges, and how much they would cost?

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government are borrowing an extra £150 billion because of the costs of their economic failure. The reality is that, with more people out of work and therefore claiming benefits, and with fewer businesses succeeding and paying taxes, this Government are ending up borrowing more, because their risky gamble with their economic policies has failed.

Instead of continuing on the downward path begun under the previous Government, total unemployment has mounted to new highs. It is now at the highest level since 1997. Some 2.67 million people are out of work. More than 1 million young people are out of work. We have the highest level of youth unemployment on record. That is a cruel fate to be inflicting on people leaving school, college and university. Instead of going on to get a job or training, they are being left to rot on the dole queue. The truth is that—just as we on this side of the House, along with numerous independent economists, warned—the Government’s attempts to cut too far and too fast have choked off the economic recovery, squeezing households and businesses and sending unemployment soaring, with the result that, as I said to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), the Government are now forced to borrow £150 billion more than they had planned.

This lesson is being learned around the world, as over-ambitious austerity plans founder. Last year the OECD warned credit rating agencies which press for rapid fiscal consolidation but

“react negatively later, when consolidation leads to lower growth—which it often does.”

Sure enough, Standard & Poor’s decision earlier this year to downgrade nine of the eurozone’s 17 member states was accompanied by the warning that

“fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating.”

The International Monetary Fund’s sharp downward revisions of its global growth forecasts—including for the UK—for 2012 was accompanied by a call to “reconsider the pace” of fiscal consolidation. Indeed, the IMF’s chief economist has said:

“Substantial fiscal consolidation is needed, and debt levels must decrease. But it should be…a marathon rather than a sprint”

and cited the proverb

“slow and steady wins the race”.

Our economic performance did not have to be this way. We need only look across the Atlantic to see the benefits of a more balanced approach to deficit reduction, with the US now enjoying steady falls in unemployment and accelerating economic growth. Let me quote the opinion of Adam Posen of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. His forensic comparison of the US and UK experiences concluded:

“Fiscal policy…played an important role as well. Cumulatively, the UK government tightened fiscal policy by 3% more than the US government did…and this had a material impact on consumption. This was particularly the case because a large chunk of the fiscal consolidation in 2010 and in 2011 took the form of a VAT increase, which has a high multiplier for households.”

In other words, by hitting households as hard as they did, sapping confidence and sucking demand out of the economy, the Chancellor and his ready accomplice, the Chief Secretary, have got the UK stuck in the slow lane while other key players in the global economy are overtaking us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

That is just not true and it is not accurate. A reduction in VAT helps people who do not pay income tax, which includes the poorest people, and benefits pensioners. The increase in the personal tax threshold does not benefit pensioners one jot, nor people who are not earning enough to benefit from a change in personal allowance. A cut in VAT helps all those people, however, including the lowest paid who will not benefit from the changes to the tax threshold. The right hon. Gentleman is just wrong.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady can correct me if I am wrong, but my reading of the IFS’s analysis is that it says that increasing the personal allowance just like that would benefit the most well-off, but it does not take into account the fact that the threshold at the 40% rate is reduced down so that the most well-off do not benefit. That is a slight flaw, by my reading, in the IFS analysis.

[Rachel Reeves]

The analysis of the measures in the Budget shows that the changes to the personal threshold are not a progressive policy, as hon. Members seem to be claiming. In fact, they benefit those dual income households on higher salaries much more than they benefit the poorest people in society, many of whom do not pay tax. Of course, the changes do not benefit pensioners at all as they are seeing their tax allowance frozen. As a result, many pensioners will lose out by up to £83 whereas people who are coming up to retirement will lose out to the tune of more than £300 a year.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s new economic model—this idea that we will have a rebalanced economy with lower borrowing, more saving and more investment—has failed to materialise. Indeed, the precise opposite is predicted. Their plan has failed: the policies are hurting, but they are not working. This Finance Bill, which was a chance for the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to learn the lessons and to start to repair some of the damage that they have done, has been a huge missed opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right: instead of the Government making up policy as they go along, without bothering to talk to anybody who is affected by it, they should have consulted the Charity Commission and the charities affected. The Press Association reports that the Government are doing a U-turn; perhaps we will get clarification on that from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, if he is bothering to listen to anything that is being said this afternoon. Will he confirm what the PA says—that there is a U-turn on charities tax relief? The fact is that nobody knows: the Government and the Prime Minister do not seem to know what is happening with their own policy, and we have had no clarification in the House this afternoon.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a clue what is going on with the Government’s policy on charities tax relief.

[Charlie Elphicke]

It is clear that we should crack down on tax avoidance, but I want to know whether the hon. Lady is serious about doing so. Will she condemn the tax avoidance of people such as Ken Livingstone, or is this just more crocodile tears from the Labour party?

[Rachel Reeves]

We are serious about cracking down on tax avoidance, but tax avoidance is not the same as giving donations to UNICEF, Macmillan nurses, the Red Cross, the National Trust and thousands of charities in this country that rely on the money they get to do their important work, often supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society. If the Government cannot tell the difference between tax avoidance and doing the right thing and supporting valuable charity work, it shows the extent to which they have lost their grip on reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Everything that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) says would be fair enough if what this Government were doing were any different from what a Labour Government would have been doing at precisely this time. The public sometimes lose track of the reality of the situation that we are in. We politicians talk in terms of billions or—perhaps soon—trillions of pounds, but a constituent put it to me like this, offering a better way of describing our situation. It is as if we were somebody who had an income of £50,000, who had knocked up a credit card debt of another £50,000, and who had promised to repay £4,000 of it but was actually repaying only £2,000. We are in a dire financial situation. I suggest that whoever were in government at this time would be doing much the same. In fact, I suggest that what the Government are doing is the bare minimum necessary to maintain market confidence.

We have had a lot of debate about the ratings agency, and I am sure that the Labour party is gearing up to tease the Government if there is any decline in our rating score, yet if we did anything less than what we are doing to address this deficit, we would be in dire trouble with the markets, and I have no doubt that interest rates would eventually have to rise, with all the consequences we know about for businesses and for ordinary mortgage payers. I therefore do not accept this apocalyptic view of the Government’s proposals. As I say, the Government are doing the bare minimum necessary to maintain market confidence.

I do not accept either the argument put forward by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that there is some sort of right-wing plot—that we have been waiting for years for this crisis in order to take a stab at Keynesian politics and that, really, all we are interested in is a slash and burn of the public services. It is hardly a slash and burn, given the sort of figures we are talking about. In fact, Government spending is as high as it has ever been. All we are doing is trying to get to some sort of grip with the deficit.

Personally, I have always argued that the economy would benefit from deregulation and from simplification particularly of the tax system, leaving aside the total size of the public sector. I would have thought that Members on both sides of the House could accept that what is needed is simplification. How, then, are we going to get it?

I spoke in the Budget debate at about 6 o’clock. Such is the complexity of the modern Budget process that it is difficult for people to get a handle on what is going on as it is being enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was teased by one of the Whips because, apparently, precisely as I stood to say that it was a courageous Budget, coincidentally all the press started turning against the Government—and it has been pretty bad ever since. I say that it is courageous because the Chancellor has started to take some difficult decisions to simplify the tax system. We have heard a good speech about charitable giving. So much of the so-called bad publicity that the Government have attracted over the Easter break—whether it be over the so-called granny tax or charitable giving or child benefit or all the other problematic areas—shows that the Chancellor is beginning to try to address these appallingly difficult structural problems.

There has been a lot of talk about the Titanic this week—nobody should worry, as I am not going to repeat the tired old cliché about deck chairs—and I think that the whole structure of the ship is wrong when it comes to the tax system. The ship is unbelievably badly built, and it is gradually sinking under us. What I have found in listening to 28 successive Budgets in this Chamber is that the tax system has become progressively more complex. It was possible 25, 30 or 35 years ago for a Chancellor to come across as providing a reasonably coherent lecture in his Budget statement—we all used to get very excited because tax on whisky or the basic rate of tax was going to go up or down by 1p—but such levels of complexity have been loaded on to the whole tax process that it has become virtually impossible for any Chancellor to come out on Budget day with any coherent proposal that is not in succeeding days unpicked and trashed because of the hundreds of pages of small print. If the structure is fundamentally flawed—it is, I think, the longest tax code in the world apart from India, and one of the most complex in the world—it is virtually impossible for any Chancellor to get a grip on it. I have never made any secret of my personal belief that we have to be prepared to be radical. We cannot just try to improve the structure; we have to go back to first steps and argue what we really believe in. What I really believe in is a much flatter—ideally, flat—rate of tax.

I have recently read an excellent book written by one of our colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), about the 19th century statesman John Bright. He was wholly uninterested in politics, but was a substantial statesman, who continually argued in terms of retrenchment, sound public services and a sound financial system. He said:

“Better teach the people something good for the future than resign oneself to work institutions already in existence”.

I suspect that too many politicians—I do not blame those on the Treasury Bench, as I know what they are paid to do—are fundamentally doing what John Bright did not want to do, which is resign themselves to work institutions already in existence. I think that the purpose of politics, certainly for those on the Back Benches, is to try as John Bright said to try to teach the people something good for the future.

I believe that this idea of a much simplified tax system or a flatter and ultimately a flat rate of tax, which has always been dismissed as an idea of the radical right, is of increasing interest to those on the left. Why? We have heard a great deal about tax avoidance, and the more complex the tax system, the easier it is to avoid it. Every time we try to deal with the problem, we create more loopholes and more difficulties, making it easier for the rich to avoid paying tax. With a much flatter—ideally, flat—rate of taxes, there is no possibility for avoidance. The TUC claims—I am sure it is right; it is not known to be a particularly right-wing organisation—that tax avoidance results in a loss to the Treasury of £13 billion a year from individuals and £12 billion a year from corporations.

To make another left-wing point, some politicians have recently had a bad press; they have been standing for various public offices or arriving in this House with good incomes outside politics, but instead of paying tax like the rest of us at the basic and then higher rates, they have put their money into private companies in order to pay much lower rates. Some politicians in America who have huge incomes, including some bidding to become President, have had a very bad press, as we found that they paid minimal rates of taxation. Why is this? It is because the tax codes in both countries are so complex that the rich and the powerful can always avoid paying tax. They cannot do that, however, under a much simplified tax system.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend not think that politicians should give a lead? It is not just Ken Livingstone who has been egregiously avoiding paying tax. It is clear from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that some Labour Members have been routing their funds into private service companies. Should that not be stopped; should not politicians set an example?

[Mr Leigh]

I do not want to ruin my argument and I do not want to lose any support that I might have from my friends on the Opposition Benches by recommending a tax on particular Labour politicians. The trouble is that there is always a huge temptation for anyone with a high income—a politician, an entertainer or a business man—to listen to the advice provided by chartered accountants. They will say, quite rightly, “Oh dear, why is a successful chap like you”—a successful chap like, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who doubtless has a very large income—“paying all this tax, when you could be setting up a small company and paying about 11%?”

In the past I have argued for a much flatter, ideally flat, rate of tax throughout earned income, but now I will be even more radical, and suggest that there is an increasing case for transposing that to small company income. I am not privileged to serve on the Treasury Bench, and I do not have teams of civil servants to advise me. I constantly come up with ideas such as this during Finance Bill debates, and I can produce figures, but I do not know whether they are correct. I have been told that a flat-rate tax of 22% with a £15,000 allowance would result in a reduction of £63 billion in tax revenue in the first year. Although I believe that the extraordinary savings that would be made through the ending of tax avoidance might well enable us to claw that back, there is no point in my simply going to the Library and then coming up with figures.

I see that the Minister is busily scribbling down every one of my pearls of wisdom at this precise moment. It would be really nice if, rather than just saying at 10 or 10.30 tonight “I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough for making such an interesting speech”, he wrote to me in the next week or two, when he has the necessary leisure, telling me—on the basis of the Treasury model—how much of the cost of avoidance could be saved through the adoption of a much flatter, or ideally a flat, rate of taxation, under which it would increasingly not be worth people’s while to try to shift their income from one pot to another. Is that, in fact, such a radical idea? Has it been tried out anywhere else? Well, of course it has.

As I have said, the size of the UK tax code has more than doubled since 1997. The present situation is absurd. The Chancellor is doing his best, but whereas 15% of taxpayers will pay a higher rate in 2012, only 3% paid it in 1978. Graphs showing the rise and fall in people’s incomes according to whether they have one child or more feature extraordinarily sudden and tremendous blips because of the child benefit clawback from people who earn more than £50,000 a year, of which I have been very critical. I do not know whether this is correct, but I have been told that a family with three children and an income of between £50,000 and £60,000 faces an additional effective marginal tax rate of 24%, on top of income tax and national insurance. I cannot believe that the Chancellor wanted to impose such a sudden, steep burden of taxation on middle-income taxpayers.

Many Members favour helping people on very low incomes. I happen to believe that the best way of helping poor people is not to churn more and more tax and benefits in their direction so that they have very high marginal tax rates—as high as 73% in the case of those who increase their earnings if they earn less than £10,000—but to take them out of tax altogether. Let me say to my Liberal friends that the one good thing that they have done in recent years is to present that argument, and I think that they have made their case. An extraordinary burden has been placed on people on lower incomes, who have been taxed far too much far too early.

I believe that my idea of a flat rate of tax is not such a radical or bad idea but one that could appeal across the spectrum, and I urge my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to consider it carefully. Otherwise, every time the Chancellor seeks to tamper with the screws and the bolts on the Titanic to ensure that those watertight compartments do not just reach halfway up the forward decks but reach the top so that the thing does not sink, he will produce a Budget that sounds good on the first day but will be unpicked and unpicked.

I think that, rather like John Bright, the Chancellor needs to see that shining light on the horizon. He needs to say, “This is my strategy, this is my philosophy, this is what I want to do. I want to say to the British people that ultimately I will take pretty much the same share of the cake as has been taken in recent years.” We all know that, for all Mrs Thatcher’s reputation for being such a right-wing radical Prime Minister, it was only after many years that, by an almost infinitesimal margin, she gradually reduced the extent of the state’s take from ordinary people. It may be impossible for the Chancellor to make a great deal of difference in those terms, but he can say, “This is my strategy. I want to be upfront and fair to the British people, so that they know exactly where they stand. If you have an income of £300,000, I will take a third of it: I will take £100,000. If you have an income of £100,000, I will take £33,000—and so on across the spectrum.” Then there will not be all the hillocks and valleys and clawbacks and allowances and churning of benefits and taxation.

I am, in a sense, sympathetic to the philosophy behind what the Chancellor has been trying to do with child benefit. Why should middle-income earners pay tax at a certain level and then be handed it back in child benefit? I agree with the Chancellor that that is absurd. However, he got himself into a dreadful mess by taking the appalling step that meant that the moment there was one higher-rate taxpayer in a family, all that family’s child benefit vanished. I thought that that was very unfair on a family in which one person worked and another, usually the wife or female partner, wanted to stay at home and look after the children. I am not suggesting that such an arrangement is better or worse than the other form of family life, but I believe that it is simply unfair, which is why I have argued for a marriage tax allowance.

I will do a deal with the Chancellor. I will give up my campaign against his reduction in child benefit and my campaign against his continued failure to introduce a marriage tax allowance, despite what he said in his manifesto, if he will say to me, “I will get rid of all these allowances, and introduce a greatly simplified tax system which is fair and equitable for all classes of people.”

I agree that there should not be a tax system that distorts people’s choices. I agree that any attempt to influence behaviour through the tax system, whether it affects marriage, children, mortgage tax relief—as in the old days—or, now, charitable giving, will produce perverse incentives. It will cause people to adjust their behaviour to reduce their tax bills rather than doing what is right, and I want people to do what they feel to be right. I want the state to be open, fair and upfront about what it is going to take, and I want the Chancellor to come to the House and say in his next Budget “This is my strategy, and this is my belief.”

I accept that—bravely, courageously, with great difficulty, and in the face of an enormous amount of bad publicity over the last three weeks—the Chancellor has taken the first essential steps towards getting rid of those allowances, and I am prepared to stand by him. I am prepared to be unpopular over the granny tax, because I can see where he was coming from. The Chancellor considered it absurd for people to be paid that allowance. Although it was apparently very popular, when there was talk of abolishing it, no one remembered that it had been introduced by Winston Churchill in 1925. I am prepared to be unpopular by supporting the Chancellor on all those issues if he is prepared to enunciate his philosophy of creating a fairer and simpler tax system. That is a fair deal, I think.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

There is one thing that troubles me. The average income in my constituency is below £20,000 a year, so if one of my constituents gives to charity they are able to tag along the taxpayer to the tune of the basic rate. Is it not a basic unfairness that someone who pays tax at 50% is able to drag along the taxman and the public finances to double the amount that a constituent of mine on an ordinary income is able to? That seems an unfair aspect in the way the relief system has worked in recent years.

[Stephen Williams]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s addressing the fact that the tax system should be fair in how different individuals get relief for an activity that is to be encouraged. Perhaps the relief on pension contributions ought to be seen in the same light but I think that would be controversial among many of his colleagues. I suppose that the basic principle of gift aid relief, tax relief and what can be recovered by a charity relates to one’s net income and the money that one no longer has. It therefore has to be grossed up by the rate of tax that has already been taken off one’s income before one chose to give that money to someone else. That is the basic underlying logic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

That is extremely worrying, because there is not much point in having VAT on anything if it is not collected. Groups in my constituency that want to do up listed buildings, such the Cwrt farm project, with which I have been involved, and the Llanelli Railway Goods Shed Trust, which I chair, care for all manner of buildings in the town. The fact that they will have to pay much more VAT means that they will spend the same amount of money—the amount that they have raised, or that individuals have available to give them—but have less work done. Less of that money will be spent on wages for local people, so less money will be circulating in the local economy. Rather than finding ways of stimulating the amount of work being done, the Government seem to be trying to close everything down and provide fewer and fewer opportunities for anybody to make money.

Practically everywhere I have gone in Llanelli over the past four weeks, I have met people struck by the fact that pensioners are being punished and millionaires are getting away with a tax break. That has incensed everybody from all walks of life.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Can the hon. Lady tell the House exactly how many pensioners in her constituency who earn more than £10,000 a year will be affected?

[Nia Griffith]

I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that over the whole country, 4.4 million pensioners who earn between £10,000 and £29,000 will be affected, including a huge number in my constituency.

People are incensed—not just pensioners but their friends and relatives. They say, “This is how it’s been since the 1920s, and the change came from nowhere.” Older people like to plan; they tend to be careful and like to know what will happen. In a Budget that was leaked and leaked, this change was just pulled out of a hat like some dreadful spotted rabbit. People were appalled, given all the emphasis that had been put on other measures that might be in the Budget.

Pensioners have to face that on top of losing their winter fuel allowance, which was a universal benefit and very useful for all manner of pensioners. We are talking about pensioners who have put by a little money and made some provision for their old age. They feel aggrieved because they have tried to do the right thing. They have been hit by the VAT rises. They have been lucky that it has been a mild winter this year, but they all tell me, “Look at my electricity and gas bills.” What are the Government doing to control energy prices? Absolutely nothing. Prices have gone through the roof even though the weather has been milder than last year, and pensioners are struggling to pay those bills. Then there is the fiasco at the petrol pumps. People had already been hit by mid-March with very high petrol and diesel prices, when suddenly the Government inflamed the situation by telling everyone to rush out and panic buy. Of course, everyone now faces even higher, inflated prices at the petrol pump.

Pensioners have been hit time and again. For those on a fixed income when interest rates are low, the rampant inflation that we have experienced is particularly hurtful. Again, pensioners have been badly affected. All in all, there is a feeling that the Budget takes from the wrong people. It takes from people who spend their money locally, tend to be careful with their money, and have saved. They spend a certain amount on their grandchildren, but they will have less money to do that—all to fund the cut in the 50p tax rate for those who earn more than £150,000. For some people who earn millions, it will mean that they are not just hundreds but thousands and tens of thousands of pounds better off. That is extremely unfair.

The people I meet ask why that is happening and why we are not all in it together. They ask why the 50p rate is not kept so that there is a fairer distribution of taxes across society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the detailed and forensic speech of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). However, unlike her, I support the Finance Bill, and hope that it will go further, particularly on business and the reductions in corporation tax. By 2014, corporation tax will be 22%—the lowest rate in the G7. I strongly believe that if the rate is cut, the take is increased. However, in cutting the rate, we also need to take firm action to stop tax avoidance and to have a new tax compact. A low rate means great responsibility, and a greater responsibility to pay the tax that is due. We need business to pay a fair share of taxes, especially multinationals that are located not here in the UK, but overseas. For too many years, they have failed to pay their fair share.

Let me give some numbers. In 1997-98, income tax raised £77 billion a year; in 2008-09, it raised £153 billion a year. In other words, income tax receipts doubled. Let us look at corporation tax. In 1997-98, corporation tax raised £30 billion; in 2008-09, it raised £43 billion, an increase of just a third. How can it be that income tax receipts doubled in the same period that corporation tax receipts went up by only a third? The rate during the period was largely unchanged. The answer is that the Labour Government allowed massive, egregious and unacceptable tax avoidance for a decade on an industrial scale. That is a disgusting record in government.

There was a massive change during that period. With the rise of the internet, tax bases were threatened, but the Labour Government were asleep at the wheel and failed to reform our tax system, and to understand and take into account the new technologies and the new threats to our tax bases.

Let us look at this massive and inexcusable tax avoidance by multinationals. Who am I talking about? I shall give a few examples. In the last financial year, it is estimated that Apple had earnings of about £6 billion in the UK. Apple has an operating margin of some 33%, meaning that profit in the UK would be roughly £2 billion. Tax attributable to UK profits should be roughly £500 million, but how much tax did Apple pay? It paid £10 million—not £500 million. That is unacceptable.

Let us take the case of Amazon. In 2010, Amazon had revenues attributable to the UK of £2.8 billion. It is estimated that it should have paid some £35 million in tax on profits of some £125 million. How much tax did Amazon pay? The answer is nothing.

[Bob Stewart]

So we are going to sort this, are we? Will it be sorted as soon as possible so that it does not happen again? We must ensure that it does not happen again.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating the next part of my speech, but let me first give some more examples.

Google revenues in the UK were £2.15 billion in 2010. Estimated UK profit was £700 million. How much tax should have been paid? Google should have paid around £180 million, but how much did it pay? It declared a loss of £22 million.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Did those companies pay the tax required by law?

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The companies would answer that they did pay the tax required by law, but my response is like the one given by their lordships in, I believe, the Aberdeen case some years ago. Their lordships said that a man is under no obligation to allow the taxman to put a greater shovel in his stores than he must by law, but my argument is that tax law should allow the taxman to put his shovel into stores so that people pay a fair and just share of taxation.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Can we be clear that the problem is the law and not the avoidance—the avoidance is legal, but the law may be wrong?

[Charlie Elphicke]

The law requires change. The avoidance might be legal, but HMRC is understood to be investigating a number of those companies. Because of taxpayer confidentiality, we will not know for sure until such time as a case comes before a court.

Let us take the case of eBay. Tax of some £50 million should have been paid on UK profits before avoidance, but eBay actually paid £3.4 million. Facebook should have paid £14 million, but actually paid £400,000. That level of avoidance is unacceptable. This poisoned legacy—the total failure to reform our tax system—left to us by the previous Labour Government is unacceptable. I might, if I am generous, put it down to their obsession with pursuing the prawn cocktail circuit for so many years, in the fear that if they took on business and ensured that it paid its fair share of tax, they would be less friendly with business and have less credibility.

[Lorely Burt]

I totally agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said so far. Does he share my concern that companies operating in developing countries should consider how they pay tax through transfer payments? Developing countries pay more—suffer worse—through not getting those payments from companies that extract their wealth than we get from our ability to tax.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for her point. My point, in this case, is that we should widen the anti-avoidance measures in the Bill for our own UK territory to ensure that taxes are paid on trading profits made here. I am not making a case for an extension by proxy of the UK’s substantial international aid budget, which is 0.7% of gross domestic product. If one wants to make the case that it should be more than 0.7%, as ActionAid does, I am sure that they will make it, but I do not want to focus on that issue. I am much more interested in securing our own tax base so that we can get our deficit down by widening the tax avoidance measures in the Bill and extending them to a wider and greater reform.

[Owen Smith]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument with great interest. Will he confirm whether he plans to vote with his Government on the controlled foreign companies changes that will give a reduction of about £1 billion a year to UK-based multinationals?

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman will know, first, that that means that we will get more tax in the UK and, secondly, that we already have a 0.7% commitment to the international aid budget. If he wants to pledge—a spending commitment from Labour of £1 billion or so—to extend that commitment, let him do so. I am sure that the shadow Chancellor would be fascinated.

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

Is the hon. Gentleman making that commitment—yes or no?

[Owen Smith]

No, I am explaining to the hon. Gentleman that the Finance Bill, supported by the Chancellor, contains a measure on changes to the controlled foreign companies legislation that will reduce the revenues to the Exchequer by £1 billion per year—companies in the UK avoiding tax. Is he in favour of that?

[Charlie Elphicke]

Aid charities have made the case that corporations headquartered in the UK should be paying more tax overseas. That is not our job. Our job is to secure our own tax base in the UK. That is what I want to focus on, and it is what the previous Government totally failed to do over many, many years. If we put a stop to it and raise the due amount of tax from companies not resident in the UK with anti-avoidance measures and proper tax reform, we could have lower fuel duties for hard-pressed families and a lower basic rate of tax—and goodness knows we could even pay down some more of the debt that the previous Government shockingly, disgracefully saddled this country with.

I hope that the anti-avoidance measures in the Bill will be widened in the following way: the first principle is that business tax rates should be low, simple and attractive. Britain should be open for business, but open for business on a level playing field for national and international companies. Businesses should have a social responsibility to pay a fair share of tax. Some object to the idea of morality in the tax system, but this is an issue of corporate social responsibility. Tax avoidance should be dealt with firmly and rules changed to stop the avoidance. I shall come to specific measures in a moment.

For many years, the European Union has consistently and systematically sought to undermine our tax base in its pursuit of a common corporation tax base. We need the EU to support member states in protecting tax revenues rather than undermining them with so-called anti-discrimination rules.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Could the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to his view of the patent box? The Chancellor first mentioned it in last year’s Budget—I think—although it was Lord Mandelson who introduced the concept in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

It is common ground on both sides of the House to support the patent box; in fact, I seem to recall the Labour party scrabbling to take the credit for the Chancellor’s implementing it.

Let me come to the next part of my list. Every multinational should be required to publish an effective rate of tax paid on UK revenues—from UK sources, from UK territory and from its UK trade. No Government contract should be awarded to any company that does not pay a fair share of tax in the UK. We need to get tough on multinationals that have taken us on a free ride by using conduits such as Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands or other European jurisdictions for too long. As a former tax lawyer—a poacher turned gamekeeper —I hope that the House will allow me to put forward some proposals for how to change things. The first is to reform the branch tax rules. Amazon will claim not to be here at all—“We’re in Luxembourg,” it will say—yet it fulfils its obligations here and trades here. The truth is that Amazon does business here. In the internet age, we need to widen the branch tax rules to deem a branch for UK-source profits to be in a UK territory. I hope that Treasury Ministers will consider that.

Then let us look at restrictions on deductions such as interest, royalties or management charges—all sorts of costs that are loaded on to companies and declared as deductible items, but then end up mysteriously in Ireland, Luxembourg or one of these other countries. That method is routinely used to depress UK profits. We should pursue substance over form. We should employ “look-through” rules, so that no deduction should be allowed unless tax is actually paid somewhere else. Companies will claim, “Oh, we’re using the Luxembourg tax treaty,” but we have to ask whether the tax is actually paid—that is, is it repatriated to the states where it is actually paid? Invariably, the answer is no. We need far stronger and tougher “follow-through” rules, to follow through the money chain and see whether genuine deductions have been made or whether companies are just using a money box offshore to rip off not just our system, but the states in their home jurisdictions. Often, they do just that.

Next, we should look at how the rules on personal service companies can be tightened up. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), politicians should be setting an example. Indeed, there are too many Members of Parliament with personal service companies—lately on the Opposition Benches, I have to say—who have not been behaving properly, but who should behave properly and pay a fair share of tax. When Ken Livingstone is not weeping crocodile tears, he is busy talking about how everyone else should pay tax but him. That is unacceptable. We need some truth, some reality and some leadership in our tax system. We should not just lecture everyone else, but act differently ourselves. We have had too much acting and too many actors; we need more reality, more substance, and more honesty and straighforwardness with the electorate.

We also need to reform the European Union or renegotiate the procurement and discrimination rules, so that we can properly secure our tax base. The way the European Union has systematically colluded with multinationals to undermine our tax base—costing us even more money than we already have to give it every year, in a big fat cheque that we write out for membership of that organisation—is nothing short of a scandal. We need the European Union to be our partner in ensuring that all companies pay a fair share of tax, not just in the UK but across the EU. We need the European Union to step up to the plate in these difficult times and fulfil its responsibility to help re-secure national tax bases—rather than undermining them—not just for our nation, but for all nations across Europe, which are pretty much all running deficits.

Finally, the principle that I am following is that business should pay a fair share of tax. This is about social justice as much as change and reform of the law. The fundamental deal in the tax compact is this: “A lower rate of corporation tax and lower business taxes, but no playing the system. Take corporate social responsibility to include taxation. Pay up and help us grow the economy and repair our deficit.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

The problem is that the measure was paraded as a bit of camouflage for the reduction in tax for those earning more than £150,000 a year. On the one hand, the Chancellor was reducing tax for the wealthiest, but he was also going to attempt to clobber them. This policy did not come from the heart; it was part of the camouflage being used in the Budget.

There has also been a general sleight of hand over taxation. The Chancellor recently stated that he was “shocked” by how little the wealthy paid in taxes, yet this Budget gives a tax cut to the 14,000 people who earn £1 million a year or more. That will give them about £40,000 each year, while the average family with children earning just £20,000 will lose £253 a year from this April. That is on top of the VAT rise, which is costing the average family £450 a year. Furthermore, another 678,000 people of all ages who are currently paying the basic rate of income tax might feel pretty aggrieved when they wake up to discover that they have been catapulted into the 40p income tax rate, not because they are earning massively more but because the Chancellor has not raised the threshold in line with inflation—[Interruption.] I do not know whether I am interrupting a kind of confab of the horizontal speaking to the vertical on the other side of the Chamber, but I will continue, having drawn attention to the significant noise coming from the other side.

The Treasury forecasts suggest that there will be 5.7 million higher rate taxpayers by the end of this Parliament. That is nearly double the 3.1 million at the time of the last general election and treble the number when Labour came to power in 1997. Of course the whole increase in personal allowance that has been paraded here today is outweighed by the VAT rises, the changes to tax credits and the higher petrol duties. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary demonstrated earlier, the average family with children will be worse off—not on the basis of our figures, but on the basis of those of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Chief Secretary’s answer to my hon. Friend was both evasive and complacent.

According to Citizens Advice, poorer families that get housing and council tax benefits will be just £33 a year better off when the tax threshold rises because as their income goes up, their benefits go down. For every person eligible to pay tax who also receives housing or council tax benefit, the Department for Work and Pensions will claw back some £187 of the £220 notional annual gain. The Citizens Advice chief executive, Gillian Guy, said:

“Raising the personal tax allowance is an empty gesture for struggling families on low wages who get housing and council tax benefits. For these families, the weekly gain is less than the price of a loaf of bread”.

In the name of simplification, the Chancellor launched his £3 billion tax raid on pensioners over the next four years. The freeze in the personal allowance for pensioners will see 4.4 million pensioners who pay income tax losing an average of £83 a year from next April. People who turn 65 after next year will, of course, lose most—up to £322 a year. The additional age allowance was introduced in the 1920s in recognition of the fact that those who have retired do not have the same capacity to increase their income. It is to the undying shame of the current Chief Secretary—a man for whom I once had some respect when he was a Liberal spokesperson on welfare issues—that he came forward today to try to justify taking money from those pensioners who have no other means of increasing their income, telling them that he was doing it in the interest of simplification.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I do hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me for breaking into her ad hominem attacks on just about every Government Member, but I point out to her that no pensioner loses any money whatever under these proposals because of the increase in the basic state pension that the Government have put in place.

[Mrs McGuire]

Frankly, the increase in the state pension came about because inflation was at 5.2% in September and the Government could not get out of it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman worked for Grant Thornton when he was a tax accountant, but Mike Warburton of Grant Thornton said:

“The Chancellor is allowing age allowances to wither on the vine. He is effectively phasing them out but there is always a price to pay for simplicity.”

The burden will fall on pensioners with below average incomes. Those are not our words, but those of an eminent firm of chartered accountants.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

No, I have been generous enough with the hon. Gentleman.

Also hidden in the statement was the announcement that there would be a further cut in the DWP’s welfare budget. I do not know how many people heard the Chancellor slide over the fact that there was going to be a £10 billion cut in the DWP budget. He did not say where it was coming from; it was left hanging in the air. He made a passing reference to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and to what a wonderful job he would do in cutting £10 billion. Where is that £10 billion going to come from? Will Ministers cut the carer’s allowance? Will they make further reductions in housing benefit for those in work as well as those who are out of work? Will there be a further erosion of support for disabled people, including disabled children? Will the Treasury freeze state pensions? Ten billion pounds will not come out of thin air. It will have to be paid for, but so far we have been given no details, or even a broad-brush indication of where it will come from.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made some valuable points about the stimulation of growth. It is worth comparing what the present Government have done with some of the steps taken by our Government when we were faced with a recession—a global recession, not a recession manufactured in this country. [Interruption.] Did I hear a voice from somewhere?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is rather contorted logic. Saying that one aspect of the activities of a big and thriving business has a slightly higher rate of tax and so the business will suddenly not be able to give any money to charity is a leap in logic so great that it can be ignored in this case. However, I did wish to discuss the point about charitable giving, because that is one of the biggest sticks that has been used to bash this Finance Bill and the Budget with.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is odd that fish and chips should be subject to VAT but pasties should not? The sausage and egg McMuffin that I sometimes enjoy is subject to VAT, as is my Domino’s pizza and the Indian takeaway I enjoy from the Milaad Tandoori in Deal, but sausage rolls are not. Is that situation not unfair, as it subsidises pasties and sausage rolls?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend that VAT is a tax of immense complexity. However, it is an essential tax for the revenue-raising that this country needs and it has to include in it things that all of us like and would rather not be taxed. Equally, it will include things that some of us do not like, do not particularly wish to eat and do not mind how heavily taxed they are. If I am put the question, I would choose a sausage roll over a pasty, but I know that others have different views.

I also want to mention briefly the freezing of the threshold about which the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) spoke interestingly. Again, the Government were right. Because the big step is being taken to raise thresholds altogether, it makes absolute sense, at no cash cost to any current pensioner, to freeze this level and allow it to even out so that we have one threshold. Every time we have variance in tax levels, be they rates or thresholds, we simply employ more people at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, we have a more expensive cost of collection and we fail to achieve the objective of simplicity across the tax system.

This has been a great Budget and I wish to finish by speaking briefly about this terrible question of tax avoidance. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) when he cited that notable judge with his phrase about allowing the taxman to take the biggest shovel. If people avoid tax, that is legal because we, as Parliament, have allowed them to do so. The following clauses in part 1 of the Bill allow legal tax avoidance: 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 38, 39, 40 and 44. All those clauses in the first 50 allow tax avoidance of which the Government approve. We will all approve of some of them, because they allow MPs £30,000 tax free when they leave Parliament, allow cars that must be made secure because people are at risk to be tax free and allow people in particular situations and circumstances to pay less tax than they would in normal circumstances. The enterprise initiatives under clauses 38, 39 and 40 allow investment that the Government want to encourage. Those are all examples of tax avoidance that is liked by the Government.

We have to be fair to taxpayers. We can only expect them to follow the law of the land as it is written—the black letter law of the land. We cannot expect taxpayers to look at their affairs and say that the Government might like them, if they are feeling kind, to pay more tax than they are being asked for. None of us has an obligation to do that and it is wrong and dangerous to elide tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

When I talk to businesses in my constituency in Cornwall—this goes for families as well; a party from Shortlanesend community primary in my constituency were just in the Gallery, so some young people from Cornwall have been here today—they tell me that, in such a part of the world where we are so far away from major markets, transport infrastructure is absolutely essential and vitally important.

I very much welcome, therefore, the Secretary of State’s introduction to the debate this morning, as it underlined the Government’s commitment to ensure that we invest in our vital transport infrastructure, which is important not only for individuals but for businesses—businesses that need to get their goods and services to market.

One area of transport, which we have not touched on today but that is very important to the nation, is shipping and ports. More than 90% of the value of goods entering this country enters on ships, as does 95% of everything that we consume in this country. Of course, it has to go through a port, or we would not be able to export. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) quite rightly reminded us of the huge importance of international trade to our great country. Growth will come from exporting more of our goods and services, and they will be exported by and large on ships. Therefore, ensuring that we have the right port infrastructure to support the growth of trade—and foreign trade—in and out of our country is vital.

I therefore welcome in particular as part of the Budget—a small but important part in this context—the Chancellor’s report back on his commitment in the autumn statement to look at the planning issues surrounding ports development. I see nodding those colleagues who represent ports, because whether one represents a small port, a relatively small port in terms of shipping turnover, as I do in Falmouth, or one of our great container ports, one realises that how port operators develop those businesses is a real issue.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the national ports planning policy framework was recently put before the House. Does she agree that it is a positive step forward, although we should perhaps support mankind a little more vigorously and the humble shellfish a little less?

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I welcome the Budget. I particularly welcome the reduction in the rate of corporation tax. By April 2014, it will be 22%, the lowest rate in the G7. As I have previously argued, I would like us to go further and reduce business taxes, in time, to 15%. With lower taxes comes greater corporate social responsibility, however. We need a new social compact: low taxes and low rates, but business must pay up.

We need a sense of social justice and of corporate social responsibility in the tax system, especially for multinationals that are quartered overseas. Let us take the case of Google. We can examine that example because Google’s numbers are publicly available, unlike those of many other companies, and it is unfair to single out Google, as the practice that I am about to describe is widespread. It took about £2.15 billion in revenue from the UK in 2010, making an estimated £700 million profit, yet it did not pay any tax. In fact, it declared a loss of £22 million. I am all for the silicon roundabout, but it should not be a magic roundabout, in which going around it twice means not paying any tax or going round it three times, like Google, means turning a massive profit into a tax loss. Even with this routing through Ireland, it is not as if the company is paying in America either, as the effective tax rate in the United States is 2.4%. As I say, we need to take much further action. We need to know more about what other companies are doing and how much they are paying to the UK.

I thus propose a tax compact. The first element is that business tax rates should be low, simple and attractive. Secondly, however, business should have a social responsibility to pay a fair share of taxes. Thirdly, tax avoidance must be dealt with firmly and rules changed to ensure that a fair share of tax is paid. Fourthly, the European Union should support member states in protecting their tax revenues rather than undermining them at every turn, with discrimination rules gone mad, as it does at the moment. Fifthly, every multinational should publish the effective rate of tax paid on UK revenues, and no Government contract should be awarded unless a fair share of tax is paid in the UK.

These are my specific proposals. Tax is avoided by use of branch tax rules and by claiming to have a representative office and no tax presence. Used and abused are deductions of interest, royalties and management charges. We need to consider tightening the representative office rules so that people have a branch and pay a fair share of tax in the UK. We should consider tightening up on the abuse of the rules of deductions. We should consider tightening up on individuals who abuse personal service companies—and I do not mean only Ken Livingstone and a load of former Ministers, as there are many people up and down the country who have been abusing the tax system and avoiding paying tax in entirely unacceptable ways. Finally, we need reform in the European Union—first of the procurement rules and secondly of the tax rules—so that we can ensure that our tax base is protected and that people who work for the Government pay a fair share of tax to the Government on their fair profits.

Finally, on stamp duty avoidance, we need to consider an annual levy on all properties owned in a corporate wrapper—not just residential, but commercial properties should pay their fair share. I do not think that any stamp duty land tax or stamp duty predecessor was paid in relation to Canary Wharf. I think it is wrong that large commercial property companies do not pay their fair share as everyone else does. Everyone should pay a fair share of tax; that is what corporate social responsibility should be about. That is social justice. That is the deal in the tax compact: a lower rate of corporation tax, lower business taxes—but no playing the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

The principal reason why we did not introduce it was because the economy was growing through most of our period in government, unlike the economy under her Government.

Let us return to the taxable income elasticity measure. The OBR says that it might be reasonable, but it also says on no fewer than seven occasions throughout the document that there is “huge uncertainty” around the assumptions—not small uncertainty, but huge uncertainty. The Treasury itself, in its document—albeit buried on page 68 of 69—says:

“The results of this evaluation are highly uncertain.”

The reality is that, based on the Laffer curve, the Government have made up that £100 million number, but over the last year we got £1 billion from the 50p rate.

[Charlie Elphicke]

There is more evidence that reducing the rate ups the take. Each time there was a reduction, from 80% to 60% in the ’80s, and then to 40%, revenues went up hugely. We know that it works, from the evidence.

[Owen Smith]

What we know is that last year we got £1 billion from the rate—not £100 million, but £1 billion. What we also know is that the OBR thinks the estimate of £100 million is highly dubious. That is the reality. If we had waited two or three years—a reasonable period—to make the estimate, when people would not be able to pull the money into an earlier year, which is increasingly difficult as the years go by, we should have seen a reasonable number.

The real issue is not the estimate, but what will actually happen as a result of the Government’s cooking the books in that fashion. Ordinary people will pay the price. In this country, 4.77 million pensioners will pay between £80 and £280 extra as a result of the changes to the personal allowance. That is the reality of the Budget, not what the hon. Gentleman describes.

What about the 1.3 million ordinary working people earning about £41,000 who have been sucked into the 40p rate? We have not heard a lot about them in the Budget. We have not heard about the teachers, policemen and middle managers who will be paying more, or indeed about the 1.3 million who will be affected by the big cut in their child benefit—£1,300 for most of them. That is the reality of the Budget for ordinary working people.

Many Members talked about business and growth. We heard a fascinating contribution from the hon. Member for West Suffolk about the need for an interventionist business and industrial strategy. I completely agree. There were two measures in the Budget along those lines: one was for video games and the other was the patent box that is said to be benefiting GSK. I know a bit about the patent box, because I was one of the industry side negotiators with the Labour Government back in 2009 when we struck the deal on the patent box. It was not a Tory policy—an industrial strategy made not by the Tories, but by Labour, and we are now reaping the benefits.

What about the video games measure? The hon. Gentleman thinks of himself as a bit of a historian of economic facts, so he should look back to the first Budget of his great friend the Chancellor, when the right hon. Gentleman got rid of tax relief for video games. Two years later, with the video games industry pointing out that it was a really duff move, the Government have reinstated the relief: not a policy made on the Tory side, but on the Labour side.

What is the reality? It is 0.1% extra growth, 4.77 million pensioners paying the price, inflation still at 3.2% and wages only up 1.4%. The reality is that the Government are ill serving our economy and ill serving Britain. They do not know what they are doing. They are making a mess and the time has come for us to think again.

Budget Leak Inquiry

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We ought to put the matter into proportion. The idea that someone would be able to identify a property and exchange contracts in the course of a morning is highly unlikely. As I have said, I have no reason to believe that the Treasury was in any way involved in briefing that particular item, but there was a lot of speculation that there would be something on properties, and that speculation turned out to be correct.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that such discussion as that which took place between the coalition parties leading up to the Budget is more healthy—more open and transparent—for our democracy than leaving things all in the hands of one, lone control freak?

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly agree that we do not want to return to the days when a Chancellor, in close co-operation with his special adviser, worked in a sort of secret bunker, not sharing any information with anyone, including the Prime Minister. That is not healthy, and, as we saw, it did not result in sensible tax policy making.

Amendment of the Law

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should remember that under this Government, unemployment among women is at its highest for more than 23 years. The Chancellor did not make one mention of what he will do about that scandal.

The Lib Dem part of the Government has made great play of the increase in personal allowances, but more than 70% of that benefits higher and middle earners and fails to benefit those at the lowest levels, who already do not pay income tax. I point out to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that, funnily enough, the majority of them are women.

While middle earners stand to gain £379 when the threshold reaches £10,000, low earners on housing benefit and council tax benefit will gain only a paltry £57, as the rest will be tapered away. Overturning the perverse reductions in tax credits, which increased child care costs and penalised those trying to work on the lowest income scales, would have helped those in need the most. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) said, pensioners will also bear the burden as the years go on.

It is estimated that the reduction in tax credits on child care from 80% to 70% has pushed tens of thousands of parents out of the labour market, with 44,000 fewer families claiming support in December 2011 than in April that year. We have a Chancellor who thinks that it should be no problem for a cleaner to increase their hours from 16 to 24 hours a week to claim tax credits. Frankly, that is the reaction of someone living in a parallel universe, who fails to listen to those who have to attempt the challenge at a time when overtime and extra hours are almost impossible in most low earning jobs. As the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers reported yesterday, two thirds of those already receiving tax credits who are about to lose them next month already live in poverty: 200,000 couples with children face losing £3,870 per annum and an extra 80,000 children will be pushed into poverty by this one measure. It is immoral, unfair and unjust. I wait to see if anyone on the Government Benches can mount any argument to support such an outrageous measure, given that it completely fails their own core test of making work pay in every case. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will see sense and postpone the measure until universal credit is in place. If we are all in it together, why was there no mention of that today? It is a scandal of the Budget.

As the Scottish TUC pointed out in its Budget submission, it is now indisputable that Government policy is hitting wages much harder than profits. Indeed, as I pointed out at last week’s Business, Innovation and Skills questions, UK companies are now sitting on the highest ratio of cash reserves of any major western economy. That is not only unfair, but bad economics. We need more of those profits to be converted into real investment, and we need a much greater rise in consumption if we are ever to achieve the necessary higher growth.

The Government’s austerity plan has led to lower tax receipts and further downward revisions of growth, which is exactly the opposite of what we need. The Business Secretary has asked for a report on how to release company cash reserves. I welcome that, but I detect a complete lack of focus or priority in tackling the issue, just as I do in efforts to achieve a coherent industrial policy. Where is the Budget to create jobs? Where is the analysis to explain why, in the past year, female unemployment in Scotland and across the UK has increased by more than 17% , but male employment has increased by only l%? Where is the analysis on the increasing move into involuntary part-time working? Where is the analysis and policy on how to shift jobs into the industrial and manufacturing sectors, and to retrain those who have lost their jobs to enable them once more to hold down secure employment? Answer is there none.

The fact that we now have the highest female unemployment in 23 years was ignored in today’s Budget speech. That is not going to go away, and I fear that the consequences have been heavily underestimated by the Government, economists and our media. Far more women work in the public sector, and increasingly, men enter and compete for traditionally female-dominated work in the private sector. We are told that three quarters of public sector reductions are still to come, with the inevitable contraction of the work force, but there is absolutely no planning on how to create new jobs for the many women who will seek work.

Announcements on infrastructure are welcome, but construction jobs are entirely male dominated. Only about 1% of electricians are female, for example, and we have the lowest proportion of female engineering professionals of any EU nation, at less than 9%. The Government need to use procurement in such a way that will encourage and increase the numbers of women. There is an example for them to follow—the Olympic Delivery Authority has got more than 1,000 women into work in construction jobs—and I want to ensure that that good practice is followed throughout every major Government procurement programme to come.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Lady that we need more women in work, and to look after women and take them out of tax, which is what the Government are doing. Nevertheless, she mentions jobs. In her constituency in the last Parliament, unemployment increased by 44%; in this Parliament it has hardly changed. Does she agree that the previous Labour Government’s policies caused massive damage to this country?

[Ann McKechin]

The hon. Gentleman distorts the employment figures in my constituency and my city, where jobs were growing before this Government started to suppress demand and consumption and to take away huge amounts in benefit. I do not want women out of tax; I want them to get better-paid jobs so that they are in a position to pay tax. That is the fundamental problem, and taking people out of tax is an acceptance of it. Far too many people work in jobs that are too low-paid, but we are not doing anything about it.

As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others have repeatedly pointed out, we have a high level of under-employment in this country—4 million to 6 million people are in that category. The Scottish TUC has calculated that more than 0.5 million people, or more than 17%, are either unemployed or under-employed. Tax and benefit changes do nothing to change that long-term lack of demand for jobs.

The Government had the opportunity today to move away from their failed policy of austerity and to focus on stimulus for growth and jobs. They have failed, but the consequences will stay with this country and the communities we represent for many years to come. I am sure that point will depress many hon. Members, and it should depress all hon. Members on both sides of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Twigg]

I have just started. Can hon. Members hang on a second? I am sorry to excite them so much. I am happy to give way to one of them in a minute.

As we heard today, it is also a cut for many in the Cabinet. It is a £40,000-plus tax cut for millionaires—an amazing amount.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman said that this is a tax cut for millionaires. If Labour feels so strongly about this, why has the shadow Chief Secretary just been on the television refusing to commit to scrapping it? Does he regret that and think that she should rethink that position?

[Derek Twigg]

We are here to discuss the Chancellor’s Budget. He is suggesting that it is a fair Budget that helps particularly low-paid people, but, as we have seen, it helps the richest, not least some on his own Benches. Let us be clear about that.

Again, on personal allowances, we need to look at the detail. Let us consider the cuts to working family tax credits and the loss of child benefit. On the latter, by the way, the Chancellor used the phrase “cliff edge”, but we are still on the cliff edge—it is just a bit more complicated to get to it. That is the big change. Then there is the cost of living—energy prices, food prices and, interestingly, petrol prices. The Chancellor used to attack Labour over petrol prices when we were in government. I remember the fuel tax demonstrations. We have not seen many of them recently but the Chancellor has done nothing to ease the burden. We know what he did for VAT. That is what added to the cost of petrol and fuel for the people of this country. But the Chancellor did nothing. Many of my constituents have written to me asking that the Chancellor do something about it, so they will be bitterly disappointed today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

I cannot give way any more.

In this Budget, our Liberal Democrat priority was to move further and faster towards our goal of £10,000 tax-free pay. Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government are therefore delighted by the confirmation that the rise in the personal allowance of £1,100 will proceed in April 2013. It is the largest rise in the personal allowance for 30 years—that is, in all our working lifetimes. In April 2013, people will be able to earn £9,205 without paying tax, which will lift a further 840,000 people out of tax. Over three years, 2 million British people will have been raised out of income tax. That will help everyone who works part time, the majority of whom are women. The measures will lift young people on the minimum wage out of income tax altogether, and 24 million basic rate taxpayers will be better off to the tune of £546. These changes will allow people to keep more of their own money. They will inject spending power into local economies and they will make work pay.

As the front page of the Liberal Democrat manifesto promised, we have delivered more than £500 into the pockets and purses of Britain as a result of this Budget. It will have been obvious from the fact that my colleagues were waving their Order Papers earlier that we are extremely pleased to have achieved that. Let us contrast it with the last Budget under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), when Labour MPs waved their Order Papers following the abolition of the 10p tax rate. There could not be a greater contrast between the priorities of this coalition Government and those of the last Labour Government.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Budget shows how effective partnership working can be in the coalition? Has he seen chart B.1 in the Red Book, which shows that those in the top decile—that is, the most well off—will experience the greatest reduction in income? They are being made to pay, despite Labour’s 1970s class war rhetoric.

[Stephen Williams]

I shall come to how the Budget will affect the most well off in society shortly.

Our second objective in the Budget was to rebalance the tax system, so that taxes would fall lightly on work and enterprise and more heavily and effectively on wealth. Already, this coalition Government have raised capital gains tax from the historically low rates that we inherited from the last Labour Government, and there have been no changes to inheritance tax. Some people might have wanted to drop the 50p tax rate altogether. However, we all know that 2012 is going be a difficult year for families up and down the country, and Liberal Democrats have been clear that now would not have been the right time to reduce the top rate of tax. I am pleased that the Chancellor has agreed with our position.

By April 2013, our top rate of tax will be in line with that of our competitor states in the European Union and the United States of America, but we will also have effective taxes on wealth in place by then. Stamp duty will be 7% on house sales of more than £2 million. We might not have got a mansion tax in this Budget, but we have certainly got a mansion duty. That mansion duty alone—just that one measure—will raise three times the amount lost through the lowering of the 50p tax rate by 5p.

The third objective that we set in this Budget was to take action on tax avoidance, and I am therefore pleased by the introduction of a 15% charge on personal property that is under corporate ownership. I am pleased that tycoons will have the reliefs that they claim restricted to 25% of their income, and I am particularly pleased that the general anti-avoidance rule for which I have argued for so long is to be introduced by this Government. I see that rule as a kind of electric fence across the tax system: a clear warning to every taxpayer that this is a line that they must not cross.

The Budget makes further changes to rebalance the economy, to restore green growth to the economy and to build on Britain’s strengths in engineering and the creative industries. In 2012, we shall see the launch of the green deal, which was spearheaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), when he was Secretary of State, and which is now being taken forward by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey). Last weekend, I witnessed the demonstration projects that are already taking place in my constituency under the Bristol Green Doors initiative, which are showing what every householder can do to take advantage of the green deal. Also in 2012, the green investment bank will be making its first investments.

The creative industries are incredibly important to our national economy, and I was pleased that video games were given recognition in the Budget. As a Bristol and west country MP, I was particularly pleased to see the extension of film tax credits to the television industry. The Chancellor mentioned Wallace and Gromit. Despite Wallace’s Lancashire accent, their home is of course Bristol. The films are made in my constituency by Aardman Animations, Europe’s largest animation company. It is incredibly important to the economy of Bristol and is a great British brand that sells millions of pounds of exports all over the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denham]

I am happy to include that test. One of the missed opportunities will turn out to be in the low-carbon economy that will dominate the global economy in the 21st century.

Things have turned out so much worse than in the heady days of the new Chancellor’s optimism when he told us in his first speech that the economy was set to grow steadily; that unemployment would fall year on year; that the deficit would drop like a stone, yet front-line services would be protected; that the private sector would expand magically, more than filling the space left by public services; that the banks would lend; and that the whole tiresome infrastructure of regional investment, job guarantees for young people and a coherent planning system could simply be swept away. Well, the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and the whole coalition were wrong.

The spending cuts, drawing billions out of the economy, were too far and too fast. The Government’s gloomy talk first unnerved and depressed consumers; then the VAT hike took money from them when we needed them to spend. Now the cuts are really beginning to bite. The Government were so cocksure and complacent that they strung together, purely for cynical political purposes, a series of half-baked, ineffective measures that were more or less abandoned as soon as the last press release had been issued: the national insurance holiday; the regional growth fund that does not pay out any money for months or years; the business growth fund with few investments; the special support for exporters with a handful of users; the Work programme that does not work; Project Merlin; and the youth contract that has not even started two years after the future jobs fund was scrapped. Any right hon. or hon. Member who gets excited by any measures announced in a press release for this Budget should remember what happened to the last lot.

Opportunities were missed—to tax bank bonuses, to fund real jobs for young people, to cut VAT for families, to cut national insurance contributions for small businesses taking on staff, to bring forward infrastructure spending. But what did we get? Just a feasibility study on Monday of this week, two years after the need was first identified. No, the short-term measures have failed, and we have seen no change.

Fairness has been well debated today. Let us remember one point—in April, families with children, taking into account the personal allowances and all the other changes, will be £530 worse off on average. When we look at next year’s personal allowances, I am sure it will also be clear, when the dust has settled and the IFS has done the figures that take into account all the other changes, that those families will still be worse off. Hon. Members should look at the Red Book and see which families are going to pay a higher proportion of their income, and it is those on low incomes.

This Government have been mired in unfairness from the beginning. We should remember that one of their first actions was to cancel changes to pension tax relief, which would have brought in £1.6 billion from the very highest earners in this country. We did not hear the Chancellor reminding us of the things he has already done to tilt the system to those best able to get through the next few years. I believe that the Government will pay the price for that.

The truth is that it is not a matter of whether stamp duty brings in more money or whether the anti-avoidance measures—the Government should tackle avoidance in any case—bring in more money. The challenge for this Government and this Budget was to devote every single available penny to raising the incomes of hard-pressed low and middle-income families and to get the economy growing. There was no justification for singling out the highest rate of income tax on earnings over £150,000 a year. The average person in work in my constituency will have to work for seven and a half years to earn £150,000. To single out that higher-earning group and to cut their tax was wrong.

This was not the fairness in tough times that the country needed, but the other failure in the Budget was the failure to lay the foundations for the economy that we need in the future. The truth is that despite the pressure on the public finances, there is no shortage of money to rebuild the economy. UK companies are cash-rich. Sovereign wealth funds are out there. There are pension funds, closer to home, with money to invest.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Denham]

I will not give way, because I have only a few minutes left. The problem is that those bodies are not investing, or at least not investing in Britain. The reasons are clear: in the short term, Government mistakes have caused the economy to stagnate, and there is also no certainty—no “compelling vision”, as the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills rightly put it. Some of us thought it was his job to come up with a compelling vision, but he is right that it is not there. There is no predictability.

Goodness knows it took my Government long enough to take a decision on Heathrow. That decision was then cancelled, and then ruled out. Today in the Budget, we find that Heathrow is back on the agenda. Billions of pounds of business investment cannot take place because of the failure of Governments to take that decision, one way or another. That uncertainty and unpredictability runs through the Government’s business failures. Low-carbon energy manufacturing and services will dominate the 21st-century global economy, but the Chancellor says that he does not like the environmental policies, while the Deputy Prime Minister says that he does. We had illegal flip-flops on feed-in tariffs, which means that a whole group of investors will never come back and invest in green energy again. Those on the Government Benches have no idea that business needs certainty and predictability, not short-term changes.

We have today heard all that stuff about the oil industry. In last year’s Budget, the Government massively increased the risk penalties for investing in the North sea by means of a last-minute political gimmick that changed the tax regime that applied there; again, that meant uncertainty and unpredictability. Despite the Chancellor’s words, there is no serious attempt to identify the technologies and capabilities that will give us the ability to compete in future. The odd speech here and the odd announcement and press release there does not match up to the job—not when we look at what our competitors are doing.

Today, we again heard about broadband, but what did the former chief operating officer of BT say about the Government’s broadband strategy in another place just a couple of days ago? He said that it was so weak that this country will be

“frozen out of the next industrial revolution”.

Just because there is a mention in the Red Book about the broadband strategy does not mean that there is one, or that it is good enough, so it is a no on that third test, which is probably the most crucial.

The next few weeks, months and years will be hard for everybody. People in this country are stoic. They will tolerate a lot if they think that the right things are being done to build a future for their children and families, and to give us long-term security. The Government do not have a clue how to create the conditions in which investment will take place, business will grow, and we pay our way and have the jobs and wealth that the people of this country desire. The Budget is unfair, has missed opportunities, and will fail the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Should we not look at providing tax help for hard-pressed families in totality and in the round, in particular, through measures such as increasing the personal allowance to £10,000 for income tax?

[Miss Smith]

I certainly agree, and my hon. Friend will know, just as other Members of this House do, that that measure would take more than 1 million low-income earners out of tax altogether, which is a healthy start and a step on the path to our economic recovery.

Financial Services Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My right hon. Friend has been entirely consistent in the views he has expressed, and he was right all along about the weaknesses of the tripartite system. On the explicit issue of whether to introduce the actual physical separation of retail and investment banking—in other words, to introduce Glass-Steagall- like legislation in Britain—I asked John Vickers, who everyone accepts was an independent and extremely expert person for the job, to look specifically at this issue with his commissioners. Some of them were probably inclined at the start to believe that physical separation was the right way to go, but when they examined the issues—and they took an enormous amount of evidence—they believed that the same objective of protecting retail customers from the collapse of an investment bank, and giving the authorities of the day greater powers to protect retail customers as they resolved problems in a retail bank, could be achieved through the ring-fencing proposal that the Vickers commission put forward. That would also maintain some of the benefits of one part of the bank being able to support another part in trouble.

The commission explicitly considered the Glass-Steagall issue, but decided that ring-fencing was a better approach. We will introduce legislation that I hope and intend will have pre-legislative scrutiny in the House during the coming Session. I hope that that will be an opportunity for Parliament to examine the issue that my right hon. Friend rightly raised. As a country, we must decide once and for all how to proceed with the structure of our banking industry.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor give way?

[Mr Osborne]

Yes, but then I should make some progress.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I hesitate to take the Chancellor back to the FSA report on the failure of RBS, which says that political pressures to be light-touch were partly to blame for the bank’s collapse. What exactly were those political pressures, in his understanding, and what lessons can be drawn from them?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is tempting me back into the fertile territory of the shadow Chancellor’s role in the banking crash, but not least because I do not want to provoke a reaction, I think that I should probably move on to the flaws of the system that the right hon. Gentleman helped to create as Treasury adviser.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

We do not want to prescribe in the Bill the qualifications of the external members of the Financial Policy Committee. That would be a mistake. However, I would obviously want to ensure that the external members—I will say something about this shortly—have broad and current experience of the financial system. There is an issue, as I will set out, about how this House—and, indeed, the political system—approaches conflicts of interest. In other words, we have to make a trade-off between appointing as external members to such bodies people who actually know what is going on in financial services and, at the same time, wanting to direct conflicts of interest, being careful not to rule out anyone simply because they work in financial services. The Select Committee on the Treasury and the Joint Committee that looked at the Bill have made an important recommendation for us all: to be careful about creating a system in which no one who has current experience of financial services sits on the bodies that regulate individual firms or, more importantly, system-wide risks, and that includes insurance.

[Charlie Elphicke]

With the tripartite system, of which I believe the shadow Chancellor was the architect, a tick-box culture of regulation grew—a one-size-fits-all approach, and that sort of thing. Will the Chancellor tell the House a bit about how we will get rid of that tick-box culture and move towards a culture of more individual and tailored regulation?

[Mr Osborne]

The key thing is to empower the regulators both to exercise judgment and then to be able to do something about it. One reason for locating both the macro-prudential role and, when it comes to individual firms, the micro-prudential role in the central bank is the culture in central banks—not just in the Bank of England, but in central banks generally—of exercising judgment and acting on it. I very much want to encourage that. My hon. Friend is right: there was no shortage of regulation, in that sense, in 2006-07. RBS complied with every bit of regulation in its decision to try to take over ABN AMRO; it is just that no one felt empowered to say, “Is this the right thing, for this firm and for the financial system, at a point when the financial markets have already frozen up?”

Rather than wait for this Bill to pass through Parliament, we have gone ahead and created the Financial Policy Committee on an interim and non-statutory basis. It is already meeting regularly to assess risks across the financial system, such as the need for banks to provide for adequate capital before determining the distribution of profits, as well as drawing attention to specific products, such as exchange-traded funds, whose excessive use may be a cause for concern. It has already produced two impressive financial stability reports.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

In Government regulation, in credit rating agencies and in Governments throughout the world. I shall come to some of the wider failures in a moment.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

But I will take another intervention. Let us hope that this one is better.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the shadow Chancellor accept that it was a failure of regulation when, to buy a home, people were lent more money than that home was worth? Was it not wrong to have mortgages of more than 100%, and was that not a failure of regulation?

[Ed Balls]

The problem was the US sub-prime mortgage market, and that the failure of regulation there rippled around the world. There were failures also of lending and regulation at Northern Rock here in Britain. I do not in any way deny that there were failures here in Britain and failures of regulation, but I do not accept that it was solely a UK failure, because it happened in America, France, Germany, Japan and all around—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

I am going to come on to explain my analysis. I am not sure I fully understood the question, but I might as time passes.

At its heart, the regulatory failure of the global financial crisis was not a failure of one approach to the institutions of regulation, but a failure of understanding and risk assessment which covered central bankers, regulators and Treasuries throughout the world. That line is not in the Conservative party Whips’ briefing, but it is absolutely true none the less.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

In a second.

And yes, it was a failure shared here in the UK, across the Treasury, the FSA, the Bank of England—and I have to say the then Opposition, too.

Let me remind the House that the legislation to give the Bank of England independence, and to shift from self-regulation to statutory regulation after 1997, for the first time established a Bank of England deputy governor with explicit responsibility for systemic financial stability and with an ex officio seat on the FSA board. As the seeds of the crisis were sown in the years before it, neither the FSA nor the Bank of England nor the Treasury rang the alarm bells, despite meeting every month in the tripartite standing committee.

The Chancellor, in a second breath a moment ago, said that we are now rightly taking the Treasury out of making such decisions, having criticised the Treasury for not triggering a crisis meeting that neither the Bank of England nor the FSA asked for—a point that seemed to be deeply confused. That demonstrates not that structures do not matter, but that there is no evidence from Britain or throughout the world that a different and arguably more complex structure, the new quartet structure before us, would have spotted a crisis that neither the Bank of England, the FSA, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank nor anybody in a regulatory position of responsibility spotted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

I have apologised to the country and have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do the same. Did this Chancellor ring the alarm bell in the crisis? No, he did not. Did he worry that regulation was insufficiently tough? No; he said in 2006 that financial regulation was

“burdensome, complex and makes cross-border market penetration more difficult”

and that it

“threatens the global competitiveness of the City of London.”

If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a debate about who should apologise and who should accept responsibility, he should look at the evidence and the judgments of the past 10 years. Let us not forget that it was the Conservative party that voted against Bank of England independence and the move from self-regulation of the City by the City to statutory regulation for the first time in this country. It was this Chancellor who personally opposed the rescue of Northern Rock, saying:

“I am not in favour of nationalisation, full stop.”—[Official Report, 19 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 186.]

It was this Chancellor who opposed the rescue of RBS; who negotiated the flawed and foolish Merlin deal; who refuses to enact proposals on transparency for bonuses of more than £1 million; who resists the reform of remuneration committees; who is selling off Northern Rock at a loss, prompting a National Audit Office investigation; and whose decision to cut the deficit too far and too fast has choked off the recovery and led to us borrowing £158 billion more. We will take no lectures on judgment from this Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Charlie Elphicke]

A few moments ago, the shadow Chancellor told the House that he had no involvement in the merger of Lloyds and HBOS. Will he confirm that he was not consulted, that his advice was not sought and that he provided no advice in relation to that matter?

[Ed Balls]

Yes.

I will set out what needs to be done to turn this bad Bill into a good Bill and to put the public interest, not party politics, in the driving seat in financial regulation. I will set out four objectives that should guide this legislation. The first is stability. We must ensure that we have a system of financial regulation that is robust in good times and in bad times. The second is to protect the taxpayer. We must guarantee that the public purse is protected from irresponsible decision making and wider systemic failures. The third is to be on the side of the consumer. There must be effective regulation, more competition and action on financial education and exclusion. The fourth is to support growth and employment. Let me take each objective in turn.

On stability, provisions to improve the structures for financial regulation and financial stability are at the heart of the Bill. As I have said, we support the FPC and we look forward to debating its powers. We are pleased that the Chancellor has today done a U-turn and decided that the Government will take up the recommendation of the Joint Committee that the macro-prudential tools to be used by the FPC should be properly scrutinised by Parliament. I hope that he will ensure that that happens not just when they are introduced, but when they are subsequently changed and updated. We believe that a new scrutiny committee should be established in this House to play that role. We will propose such an amendment.

On the splitting of the PRA and the FCA from the FSA—I know that these acronyms are hard to keep up with, but this is quite a complex system—it is fair to say that there are advantages and disadvantages. The jury is out. The Chancellor’s decision to put all this new and more complex architecture under the umbrella of the Bank of England, and arguably under the personal direction of its Governor, raises serious questions of accountability and clarity in decision making, as has been highlighted by the Treasury Committee and the Joint Committee.

We share the Treasury Committee’s concerns about accountability within the Bank and accountability to Parliament. As the Committee stated,

“the governance of the Bank needs strengthening and…it needs to be more open about its work. The Bank must be held more clearly to account”.

The Committee has proposed that

“the role of the Court of the Bank of England should be substantially enhanced. It should be transformed into a leaner and more expert Supervisory Board, with the power to conduct retrospective reviews of Bank policies and conduct.”

The Chancellor has said that he does not want to go down that road. He has made some moves, but we think that there is further to go to ensure that there is proper accountability. Again, we will propose reforms in Committee.

It is on the issue of crisis management and the processes for deliberation and decision making within the new, more complex structure, that we have misgivings. The Joint Committee was right to state:

“The powers and responsibilities of the Bank of England and the Treasury during a crisis are key.”

However, the Bill and the memorandum of understanding are deeply confused and opaque, as we have just heard from the Chancellor. We welcome the fact that the Chancellor has accepted the Treasury Committee’s recommendation that the Chancellor should be provided with a discretionary power to direct the Bank when there is a material risk to public funds. The British Bankers Association also welcomed that in its submission, but stated that it was

“unclear that the assignment of powers now proposed is consistent with the strategic division of responsibilities envisaged by the Government, including the proposed power of direction over the Bank.”

Article 20 of the memorandum of understanding exposes the hole. I will quote it in full:

“During a potentially fast-moving crisis, it will become especially important to ensure close and effective coordination so as to maintain coherence in the overall crisis management process. At the heart of institutional coordination during a live crisis will be frequent contact between the Chancellor and the Governor. However, the Chancellor and the Governor may agree to establish ad hoc or standing committees at other levels to support this process.”

Under the Bill, there will be three deputy governors at the Bank, a new Financial Policy Committee, two new sub-agencies at the Bank—the PRA and the FCA—and a new quartet of relationships, in which there are separate statutory responsibilities for the Treasury, the FPC, the PRA and the FCA, as well as for the MPC. Will the Chancellor hear any of the views in a crisis, or pre-crisis, from the statutory office holders? Only, according to the MOU, if the Chancellor and the Governor decide that he should. It states that there will be frequent contact just between the Chancellor and the Governor. It is inevitable that there will be a variety of views and dissenting voices, not only at senior levels within the Bank, but between the different statutory agencies, because those agencies have overlapping and, in certain types of crisis, contradictory objectives. Those different statutory responsibilities are being put under one umbrella organisation—the Bank of England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but to be honest I do not have strong views on that. The reality is that there was not cross-party support or support more widely in civic society for Bank of England independence when we established it. The Conservatives voted against it. In those circumstances, it would have been difficult for the then Government to pass legislation for one eight-year term—there would have been a lot of opposition to the idea of giving one unelected individual such power for an eight-year term. This Bill moves us not only from a four-year to an eight-year term, but gives one individual massively more power than they ever had. That is what concerns me.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Matthew Hancock]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

The Chancellor referred to his years of thinking about this legislation. I am afraid that his former adviser demonstrates the kind of muddled thinking that has got the Chancellor into this difficulty.

I am not saying that the tripartite system is the best one. I am quite happy to go along with the shift to the quartet system—I can see the advantages of the FPC and the split of the FCA and the PRA. I am not worried because individual statutory agencies will be under the umbrella of the Bank of England; I am worried because the deputy governor and head of the PRA, who has a clear responsibility, is not part of the decision-making process. That is what I am worried about. I want the MOU to say that at the heart of the system—in pre-crisis and crisis—there will be a “clear view” group, in which the Governor and his key deputies, who will have separate and sometimes contradictory statutory responsibilities, come together with the Chancellor to make the decision.

Even if the Chancellor—this is not an ad hominem point—has the umbrella of the Bank of England and the quartet system, he should want to hear from the person whom he appoints on a very large salary and in law to be the head of the PRA. What I do not understand is why that would not be written into the MOU. Actually, I sort of do understand. There is a history in the Bank of England of the Bank equalling the Governor of the Bank—of wanting to personalise the appointment—as the Chancellor has described. However, we cannot personalise something as complex as the proposed system. It is not just that the system is complicated; there are also tensions and differences of view.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) is quite right that it is hard to operate a tripartite system in which there are different views, but those differences will not be avoided by burying them under the table and pretending they do not exist. Had that happened at key moments in the previous crisis, the wrong decisions would have been taken.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the shadow Chancellor for giving way once more. The Chancellor’s plan is for the financial and prudential regulation buck always to stop with the Bank of England. The shadow Chancellor has concerns about moral hazard on the part of the Governor, which suggests that he is not as strong a fan of the independence of the Bank as he has previously made out. Should we not trust a Governor of the Bank of England to work effectively with the Chancellor?

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It is also important not just to think of poverty in terms of moving someone from one side of an arbitrary line based on a percentage of median income to another, but to look more widely. That includes improving poor children’s opportunities. The Government, through the pupil premium and other measures, are concentrating on opening up those opportunities.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the Minister tell the House how families can have a greater option of part-time working under the taxation changes, and whether they will have more encouragement to work with the introduction of the benefits cap?

[Mr Gauke]

With the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has undertaken, the Government are determined to ensure that work will always pay and that we do not have people trapped on benefits.

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

In the hon. Lady’s constituency, long-term youth unemployment has gone up by 25% in the past few months. I do not know what she says to her constituents—“There’s loads of jobs out there. Just go and get one”? More people are chasing jobs than there are jobs available. That is because the Government are pushing more and more people out of work. I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not know the numbers for her constituency, but we know.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The hon. Lady talked about the scarring effect of the fast-buck culture. Will she condemn the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) for taking a consultancy with private equity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the centre of this debate is the question of what the optimum balance should be between growth and cuts, and in what time scale we should bring down the deficit. I contend that the debate should not be some sort of auction about who will cut what when; it should be about who has the most creative, realistic growth strategy, predicated on what has happened in the past. Let us look at the Labour party’s record, to which people have referred. Post-1997, we created 2 million more jobs. We replaced interest rates of 10% to 15% with very low rates, thanks to the independence of the Bank of England. With those jobs and those taxpayers, we doubled our investment in the health service and reduced debt. We have a fine record to build on.

In 2008, as we all know, there was a financial tsunami, generated by sub-prime debt in the United States. Our then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), got together with Barack Obama to ensure that we delivered a fiscal stimulus, and that there was not a depression. We had a shallow recession, and then fragile growth. Then the Tories arrived, and immediately announced 500,000 job cuts. Consumer confidence and demand were thrown out with the bathwater. Immediately, people in the public sector thought that they were going to lose their jobs, and would not spend money. People in the private sector stopped taking on employees, and we ended up with the deficit rising. The deficit forecast is now £158 billion above what it was; when Labour came in, the deficit forecast was falling. The question is what we should do to bring back confidence.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he agrees with the shadow Chancellor, who said the other day,

“we are going to have keep all these cuts”?

[Geraint Davies]

I am not opposing having to make savings and cuts. I am saying that the key is growth. As a business man in Swansea said to me, “It would be no good laying off my workers and selling my tools if I was making a loss; I would need to grow my sales while making savings.” That is the focus. That is why there is a five-point plan focused on national insurance for the building industry, on VAT for extra consumption, and on taxing banker bonuses to generate jobs and infrastructure growth.

In addition, we need a credible growth strategy focused on the growth opportunities in the global economy, namely the emerging consumer markets in India, China and south America. What are we doing to re-engineer our financial markets, our modern manufacturing, and our services, so that they are tailored to those markets? What will we do about getting capital opportunities from surplus-rich countries such as China, or oil-rich countries, so that they invest in our infrastructure? What are we doing to skill ourselves up for future markets? Those questions do not seem to be being asked or answered tonight.

In Swansea, I am talking with prospective manufacturers from India about linking up with the university and providing a manufacturing base to build on the cutting-edge life science research taking place there. I am talking with possible investors about investing in manufacturing facilities. There are companies such as Tata near Swansea, which are already investing in the modern manufacturing of steel, which will have six layers and can create its own energy and heat, so there are new global opportunities. This debate has been completely focused on who will cut most, when. That is going nowhere. We cannot cut ourselves out of this economic problem. We have to grow, invest and reposition our industry.

Connecting Europe Facility

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

There is much agreement on the need to reform the common agricultural policy. More should have been done in the past, but more needs to be done now. I want to hear the Government’s strategy on that. I want to hear how they are going to win some concessions and what they are doing to change the negotiation stance. They are certainly doing nothing about refocusing growth priorities or reforming the common agricultural policy.

We have to re-order the connecting Europe facility so that we can phase capital infrastructure components and enhance employment and growth. While the 26 other countries are busy negotiating their new economic treaty without the UK taking part, they will realise that the EU budget is highly relevant to their economic predicament, particularly in the eurozone. I would therefore like to ask the Minister an important question: how will he ensure that he keeps track of all those discussions on the sidelines—all those deals being done in meetings that he will not be party to—so that the UK voice is part of the process?

We are discussing an important series of proposals, which touch on broadband, transport and energy policy. A year ago, the Government unveiled their broadband strategy. It is becoming clear that the vast majority of local authorities are not likely to meet the Government’s universal broadband target by 2015, which has already slipped by a couple of years compared with the target that we set when in government. We tabled some freedom of information requests before the Christmas break and discovered that 70% of local councils said that they had

“not made any plans, provisions or budgeted to take advantage of the Government’s funding allocation for broadband provision,”

and that 74% had had no assessment made of the likelihood that the roll-out of superfast broadband in their areas would be completed by 2015. The Minister therefore needs to explain why a quarter of local authorities say that they have not even been contacted by BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—about the need to secure funding; indeed, only a quarter have made plans to finance universal broadband roll-out. Even the Countryside Alliance and the Federation of Small Businesses agree that the Government are not doing enough to support Britain’s digital future.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It was the previous Labour Government’s policy to have a telephone tax. Does the shadow Minister still believe that the telephone tax is the right way forward? Yes or no?

[Chris Leslie]

I really do not think that anybody was proposing a telephone tax in the sense that the hon. Gentleman characterises it. We have to find ways to fund improvements in broadband communication, but my question to him and the Government is this: what exactly is their target for broadband roll-out? They have still not said. The EU is talking about some 30 megabits per second and 50% at 100 megabits per second by 2020, which is quite an ambitious target, and we had our targets for 2012. Perhaps the Minister can consult his colleagues on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I, too, support the motion, although it is, as always, a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), with whom I sit on the Select Committee. I support very many of his considered views on Europe.

This strikes me as a classic European measure with excessive spending, excessive bureaucracy and excessive meddling. As the Minister said, the amount required will shoot up from about €7 billion to €50 billion. That is excessive at a time when no sensible Government and no sensible European Union or Commission would want to increase spending.

Another thing that I find extraordinarily bizarre is the idea of a core network, core corridors and corridor co-ordinators. It is yet another nascent European bureaucracy to build up extra numbers of people in Brussels and large programme management costs, and it seems to me to offend against the principle of subsidiarity—as has been said, this should be done more nationally—and to feed the unnecessary bureaucracy in Brussels. The key question, to my mind, is the concern that the so-called corridor co-ordinators who seem to have crept in could become corridor meddlers and start telling member states what to do, issuing directions and making orders. That is entirely undesirable.

It is much better for there to be co-operation between nations, which is the principal reason I wanted to speak. There is a lot to be said for nations working together on cross-border transport corridors. The draft proposals— beautifully and lucidly set out in the explanatory memorandum that the Minister of State tabled last November—talk about core network corridors, which the Commission defines as

“an instrument to implement the Core Network. Each Corridor must involve at least three Member States. Will be based on modal integration and interoperability and have a coordinated development plan and management structure.”

That is classic European-speak. I do not think that that needs to be done by the European Commission; it could be done by the UK and individual nations, working to improve cross-border networks. That is particularly important for the transport networks in Kent, which join the rest of the continent to our country and our transport networks so well.

My principal concern is that for many years there has been under-investment in those networks. We have the M20, which is a kind of concrete motorway, and the A2, which has been waiting to be upgraded. On the continent, likewise, the road network, as anyone who has travelled there knows, could be better. A key area for cross-border co-operation could be for the UK Government to consider how those networks could be improved along with the French, the Belgians and the Dunkirk port. A map of Europe shows the so-called golden banana stretching from south-east England towards lower Bavaria, at the heart of which is the Dover strait and the Dover-Calais crossing. Indeed, the Dover-Dunkirk crossing is an important part of the communication and trading links that are so important to our nation’s prosperity and to that of Europe.

If, despite our warnings in today’s debate, the fund is to be extended as suggested, it should not be invested in rail networks in Romania, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) suggested it might be, but in upgrading international transport links between the UK and other countries in the so-called golden banana to help Europe to grow. It is important that we have more growth in Europe and that we support first the area that can provide the value added and recovery generation to drive our European economy forward. My plea to the Financial Secretary and to the Minister of State is to meet me to discuss what we can do in Kent to make the case to France and our friends in Belgium, to ensure that we at least get a fair part of the fund to see whether we can improve the transport networks in Kent and take forward the lower Thames crossing.

Banking Commission Report

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

There will be, and part of the new regime will involve a specific authority looking at competition and customer service. In that way, we shall avoid having one institution—namely, the FSA—trying to do both functions of a regulator, which are to look at the point-of-sale service that someone gets to ensure that they are being sold a product correctly, as well as ensuring that the bank itself is being properly managed and is not about to collapse. Separating those functions will be an essential part of our reforms.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I urge the Chancellor to consider a whole in-country depositor preference system, such as that in the United States, rather than the insurance-based system recommended in the Vickers review? This would, over time, discourage reliance on the wholesale short-term funding markets. It would also reduce the risk to the taxpayer of banks that are too big to fail.

[Mr Osborne]

I am happy to consider my hon. Friend’s views, but we are equally clear that the depositor preference proposals in the Vickers report are the ones that we support in principle; their implementation in practice will be addressed in the White Paper.