Corporation tax, like income tax, is not a voluntary tax. You pay what you owe—no more, no less—according
3 Feb 2016 : Column 984
to the law. HMRC does a very good job of implementing that law under difficult circumstances, particularly for companies that are complex and deal internationally, where it is difficult to hold intangible products, where intellectual property and transfer pricing are involved, and where customers are served from multiple territories.
What we really need to do—the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) made some valid points—is update the international trade laws because these days, of course, international trade is as likely to be conducted by the push of a button as by being shipped in canisters and widgets from country A to country B. The reality is that some of our tax laws are as old as the 1920s.
While this Government are trying to make progress—indeed they have closed many loopholes—we have a lot more to do. Nothing should be taken out of consideration. We should carefully consider whether corporation tax in its current form is still fit for purpose. Comments about whether the practice of establishing intellectual property in international tax havens is valid or not are fair ones to investigate.
We must remember that Google was founded only in 1998, which makes it a teenager, and many other major internet companies are also teenagers. Teenagers make mistakes; they need guiding. It is up to us, in the role of a responsible parent, to make sure that we reset the ground rules on behaviour.
3.57 pm
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): The Google tax debacle demonstrates that attempts to patch up the current international tax system are woefully inadequate. Despite the efforts of the OECD and its base erosion and profit shifting overhaul, it appears highly likely that corporate tax will continue to be an optional extra for most multinational companies.
The UK’s tax treaties—this is to do with Ireland as well in terms of Google—with developing countries allow UK firms to limit their tax payments, often in countries where the money is most needed to fund hard-pressed public services. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) rightly mentioned Malawi earlier and I praise him for that.
According to the IMF, recent calculations have shown that developing countries are losing around $200 billion a year through tax avoidance by companies. The OECD has estimated that tax havens could be costing those developing countries three times the current global aid budget.
The value flowing out of countries from companies not paying their tax is huge: an estimated $l trillion a year. To put that into context, Africa is now a net creditor to the world in terms of the tax it loses from multinational companies operating in African countries’ jurisdictions. According to Oxfam, corporate tax avoidance in the form of trade mispricing by G7-based companies and investors cost Africa $6 billion in 2010—more than enough to improve the healthcare systems of the Ebola-affected countries of Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea.
Then there are the sins of omission. Anonymous shell companies in the British Virgin Islands were used to acquire mining concessions in the Democratic Republic
3 Feb 2016 : Column 985
of Congo for $275 million. They were then sold for $1.63 billion, costing the state $1.36 billion, or twice the combined health and education budget.
What is to be done? The Prime Minister is hosting an anti-corruption summit in May, and is inviting Heads of State from all over the world to London, but how can the UK lecture other countries on what they should be doing to tackle tax avoidance and tax corruption when the Crown dependencies and overseas territories in our own constitutional backyard are such notorious purveyors of secrecy? I put that case to the Minister on BBC Radio 5 Live just before the election.
We need to insist that multinationals publish their basic accounts in every country. We need to insist that they clean up their backyards, and ensure that British-linked tax havens—the Crown protectorates—cannot continue to act as conduits for tax dodging. We need to stop applying sticking plasters to broken OECD tax rules, and mandate the UN to develop a set of rules that ensure that big businesses pay their fair share of tax in every country in which they do business.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. The clock is on zero. I think it would be unfair to allow the hon. Gentleman to give way.
4 pm
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): I will be brief.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) said that paying corporation tax was an optional extra. If he is right—and there are some good arguments for why he might be right—it is because of the unbridled complexity of the system. I used to carry a number in my head: I thought that the tax code was 11,000 pages long. However, when I went to a Public Accounts Committee tax conference organised by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)—the Dame Professor Lady right hon. Member for Barking—I discovered that it was 17,000 pages long, and I was told on the radio yesterday that the figure might now be nearer 20,000.
If we made the Bible 10 times longer, we would not expect there to be less work for theologians. We need to sort this out. Complexity is not always avoidable in a mature economy, but there are steps that can be taken to make the code simpler. The Office of Tax Simplification examined 155 different tax reliefs and recommended that 47 should be abolished—43 actually were abolished—but over the same period, the Government of the day introduced 134 new reliefs. According to the Office of Tax Simplification, that produced a total of 1,140. Incidentally, HMRC had thought that there were only 398, which shows how extraordinarily complex the system has become.
That is the central problem, and it needs to be tackled. If a system that can only be dealt with by a high priestly caste is combined with a global economy, a country will
3 Feb 2016 : Column 986
get what we have got. It was this Government who introduced the idea of an Office of Tax Simplification, and it is this Government who are starting to do something about flattening and simplifying the tax system.
There is also the question of the cost of tax reliefs, which is sometimes much higher than HMRC expects. When the right hon. Member for Barking was the films Minister, for very good reasons she introduced a film tax credit. She was then horrified to discover that, using the law of the land, some very clever entrepreneurs and accountants were going around doing things which bore some relation to UK film activity, but perhaps too tangentially for the right hon. Lady’s taste. Much of what had been done was found by the courts to be within the law, and ended up costing HMRC, and taxpayers, hundreds of millions of pounds more than had been expected.
This Government are starting to tackle the problem. They have not made all the progress that they need to make, because this is a very big problem indeed, but at least they are starting to tackle it. The last Government did not collect the tax, but this Government are moving in the right direction, and I commend them for what they are doing.
4.3 pm
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): I am highly enamoured of the record of the last Labour Government, and particularly enamoured of their Treasury policies.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for drawing attention to an assessment by the Financial Times of the comparative records of the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010 and subsequent Governments. The article, written by Vanessa Houlder in February last year, made three very important points to set the record straight. First, it stated that the current Chancellor
“has raised much less income than the last Labour government from reforms to tackle corporate tax avoidance”.
The second point was referred to by my hon. Friend in his introductory remarks. The article stated:
“Measures put in place by Labour during its 13 years in power to counter corporate tax avoidance are projected to raise ten times as much over the next four years as those introduced by the…coalition government.”
Thirdly and importantly, the article stated that the coalition
“eased laws aimed at stopping companies using tax havens, which had been repeatedly tightened under Labour.”
That is the difference between the record of the Government when I was a Treasury Minister and the current Government. Labour in government did the heavy lifting on corporate tax avoidance. The new Government, when elected, had different priorities, as they were entitled to have, but they cannot claim to have maintained the progress Labour made, because they have not.
I welcome the Government’s seeming support for country-by-country reporting, but those close to the process find it difficult to recognise that the Government have led on it since 2010, as they have claimed. We certainly led on it prior to 2010. The original idea was devised, I think, by Richard Murphy, about whom we have heard a good deal more in the last couple of years, but it was first brought to me, when I occupied the Minister’s office, by Christian Aid. I pay tribute to its work on this. It came to see me in early 2009. We had a
3 Feb 2016 : Column 987
series of international meetings in Berlin, Paris and elsewhere in 2009, at which I put the issue on the agenda, and that culminated in the first joint meeting of the OECD tax and development committee in January 2010 in Paris. That kicked off the process that I am delighted the Government are now swinging behind. But Labour in government started this off and Labour is entitled to the credit for that.
4.6 pm
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con): It is rich to attack this Government for collecting tax. Big multinational corporations cannot carry on as they have been and must expect to pay more tax, and Google’s payment is an important step forward to address the long-standing problem of larger corporations not paying fair amounts of tax under the last Labour Government.
Any debate about that past tax in particular and about aggressive tax avoidance in general is in the context of what past law required should be collected. This debate should look ahead to whether and how our laws should change in order to collect more. The tax gap is reported to be £34 billion, or 6.4% of tax liabilities, according to the 2013-14 figure. What might £34 billion buy us? It is half the deficit Labour left us. Public sector net borrowing is about £73 billion this year. It is three times the pay bill for nurses. To break it down further with an international example: £1 billion is what we contributed to the Ross Fund in the global fight against malaria. What is that £34 billion made up of? Only one third is committed by large businesses; half is committed by small and medium-sized businesses; and the rest, I take it, is made up of individuals in error and out-and-out criminals in malice.
We need to look at fairness in two ways. First, is the law applied fairly? We rightly expect HMRC to collect as much as possible from every source, large and small, mistaken or malicious, under a fair application of existing law. Secondly, is the law itself fair? Does the law need to change further, and if so how, to ask for more tax? That is obviously an international question. I welcome the OECD’s work on base erosion and profit shifting—I look forward to scrutinising the results in the Finance Bill to come, because that is ready for implementation—and the Government’s leadership on a diverted profits tax. I look forward to hearing a summary of what they have brought in during its first year.
In summary, I want tough action to ensure that all companies pay their fair share of tax; I want more tax collected; I want the laws we have to be used; I want new laws to be reported upon carefully so that my constituents can be assured that we are collecting what we need; and I want Britain to continue to lead the world in the OECD’s implementation of a sensible set of multinational measures.
4.9 pm
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
I was going to start this speech by going through the alphabet, naming different companies that did not pay their fair share of tax: Amazon, BP, Citigroup, Dell, eBay, Facebook, Google. I stopped at Google and went to the search engine of the same name and searched for the word “alphabet.” Most people would assume that I
3 Feb 2016 : Column 988
found information on the alphabet—A, B, C, D and so on—but no: what came up was “Alphabet Inc.” It turns out that the Google we all know and use has created a parent company, and it has called it Alphabet. Alphabet is a multinational conglomerate that was created last year. It is the parent company of Google and several other companies previously owned by, or tied to, Google. It is the world’s most valuable company, even wealthier than Apple. However, it does have something in common with Apple: the desire to not pay tax.
In a world that is becoming more and more connected, and as we seek to develop far-reaching global trade deals, we find that multinational corporations are moving their money and profits around the world. We should be under no illusion as to why they do this: it is to maximise their profits by reducing their tax liability.
So how do we make multinational companies pay their tax, when they invest so much in trying to dodge paying their taxes? Indeed, they use any system, loophole or avenue open to them to get out of their tax obligation. With this Chancellor they have even got someone on the inside helping them out. Frankly, it sends out the wrong message.
The Chancellor, often referred to as the octopus, with his tentacles reaching every part of Government, has declared his tax deal with Google a victory. He may be the octopus, but we are not his suckers. He should publish the details of the deal, show transparently what was agreed, deal with every loophole that comes forward and ensure we deal with the deficit by ensuring those who can pay do pay.
I join my colleagues today in demanding that the Government publish full details of the deal and implement country-by-country reporting of company accounts.
4.12 pm
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con): This is a timely debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in it. It is important to remember what the previous Government did, because members of it are speaking, eloquently in many cases, in this debate. It is absolutely relevant, therefore, and gives us the context in which this debate has been called.
For 13 years Labour was in power and for at least the last five of those years these multinational companies—Amazon, Google, Apple—paid almost no corporation tax whatsoever. That was the immediate context. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) suggested that that Government had a great record, but it was not great. These companies paid very little; this is the general context.
It is quite right for the shadow Chancellor to bring up this debate. I think he makes a reasonable point that ordinary people—our constituents—expect companies to pay their fair share, but I would observe that the very facts he points out about Google employing thousands of people at very high salaries shows, in a way, the success of Google. It shows the success of this Government in creating a business-friendly environment in which these companies can operate. In fact, every single one of those employees, who are paid an average of £160,000 a year, are contributing very significantly to the Treasury in the form of income tax and other taxes that they pay. That fact should be observed in this debate.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 989
If we are looking at being able to tax multinational companies, we must consider the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) suggested, they are operating in lots of jurisdictions and, in many cases, if they are not internet companies they will probably be paying tax in only one country. There are lots of variations that we need to consider, and I do not think it is right for Opposition Members simply to try to make political capital in this sensitive and highly complicated debate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has said, the reason that companies avoid tax is the complexity of the system. There is a direct correlation between their propensity to avoid paying tax and the complexity of the tax system. Again, the last Labour Government had a pretty poor record on that. This is a complicated debate, and I object to the fact that Labour Members are trying to score political points in it.
4.15 pm
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) might have commanded a little more respect if he had listened with respect to the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). This debate is about Google, but it is also about so much more. We know that Google is currently valued at $524 billion, and that its profits in 2015 alone were £11 billion, an increase of £1 billion in a year, based on revenues of more than £52 billion.The Daily Mail has reported that Google has more than 5,000 UK-based employees, which is about a 10th of its total worldwide workforce. That figure includes 279 of its European, middle eastern and African directors, compared with Dublin, where it has 79 such directors. As colleagues have said, Google is constructing a new headquarters worth £1 billion near King’s Cross, in addition to its five other offices in the UK.
I do not want to get into a blame game. I want us to get the way we recover tax in this country right, but I believe that certain factors did not help to ensure focus on this growing problem. The public finances were healthy up to 2008. In the year before the crash, the Treasury netted nearly 30% of its corporate tax receipts just from financial services. That figure had fallen to about 17% by 2009. Also, at that time, the online giants of today were largely below the radar. Many floated before they had made a penny profit. Let us look at the corporate giants of today. Twitter, which floated in 2013, was valued at $18 billion on the day of its flotation yet it had never made a profit up to that point and did not do so for another year or more. Likewise, when Google first floated in 2004, its valuation was $23 billion but it was not turning the kind of profits that we are talking about today. Google’s circumstances are somewhat different today, yet after six years and with all the benefits of hindsight, this Government have achieved a payment of only £130 million, and we do not know how much of that is interest or penalties. We have to do more on this.
We can add other household names to the list of companies that paid no corporation tax in 2014: Shell, Lloyds Banking Group, AstraZeneca, SAB Miller, Vodafone
3 Feb 2016 : Column 990
and British American Tobacco. Those six companies made a combined profit of £30 billion in 2014, yet they are notionally making no money in the UK.
Anna Turley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that initiatives such as the Fair Tax Mark, which is a bit like the fair trade stamp, should encourage more companies to demonstrate publicly their tax liabilities and responsibilities, and that they should consider it a badge of pride that they are paying their full tax?
Caroline Flint: Absolutely. I think that there is cross-party support for more transparency.
Given that Google, HMRC and the Chancellor were quick to publicise the outcome of their negotiations, surely they should be open about how they arrived at the figure of £130 million. We need to know what sort of benchmark this is setting not only for Google but for other companies as well. The Government make the rules and HMRC enforces them, and it is about time that we had more openness. To be honest, if I worked for Google and I were advising it, I would say, “Volunteer to give the information, because this situation is not doing your company any good whatsoever.” This is important not only to reassure public opinion but to restore the confidence of those UK-based businesses that have much lower revenues than these giant corporations yet pay considerably more tax, including 20% corporation tax.
We cannot content ourselves with companies appearing to decide whether or not to pay any tax, as though it were discretionary or some kind of charitable payment to the UK. If the broadest shoulders are to bear their share of the burden for funding public services and our pension system, I am afraid that the Government will have to raise their game. We will support the Government on that. Our Labour motion might not receive a majority in the vote today, but this problem will not go away. I, for one, am looking forward to next week when, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I shall hear directly from Google and HMRC about what they have to say.
4.19 pm
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con): In preparing for this debate, I was keen to see some facts about the Government’s record, so I turned to a study published by the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation, probably the most academically reputable institution in the area of corporation tax. The report it published in February of last year identifies 42 separate measures that the Government have taken since 2010 to clamp down on corporation tax avoidance and evasion. They are forecast to raise £34 billion. I strongly welcome the measures that the Financial Secretary and his colleagues have taken in this area, which include the diverted profits tax and the general anti-abuse rule. The Government have also increased capital gains tax from 18% to 26%, dealing with a loophole that was being widely exploited by some hedge funds to end up paying rates of tax below that of their cleaners. The Government’s record in this area does bear scrutiny. Indeed, Richard Murphy, who describes himself as the “father of Corbynomics” declared himself pleased and surprised at the progress made in this area since 2010, which includes the BEPS initiative, which the UK Government have been strongly pushing.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 991
I noted with interest that the shadow Chancellor did not repeat a claim he has made in the past about £93 billion of what he has called “corporate welfare”, implying that there is some sort of evasion or avoidance going on. Richard Murphy said yesterday, before the Treasury Committee, that he would question whether that figure was correct, as it includes things such as capital allowances, and research and development tax credits, which of course support companies that are investing in productivity, a topic that we all care about very much.
On Google, I said in an intervention that this Government have collected £130 million of tax more than the last Labour Government, who collected precisely zero. As such, we are talking about a welcome step in the right direction. The 3% tax rate has been mentioned but, as some Conservative Members have pointed out, such an analysis completely ignores the fact that Google’s staff headcount and intellectual property reside disproportionately in the United States. Were we to adopt the approach being suggested, UK companies, particularly those in the music, pharmaceutical and other industries, would suffer greatly.
That is not to say that there is not more that can be done—more can be done. I particularly suggest to the Financial Secretary that we should look carefully at how things such as transfer pricing rules are applied. Two or three years ago, Starbucks successfully levied a 6% brand fee from an offshore jurisdiction into the UK which almost completely extinguished its UK profits. Any brand levy that results in a zero profit is, almost by definition, too high, so I ask him to give guidance to HMRC on that topic, but I support the Government’s initiatives and hope they go further.
4.22 pm
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. As someone who represents a constituency containing thousands of business, of all shapes and sizes, many of which feed into the national supply chain, I wish to say at the outset that I am very proud of the role that not just my constituency, but this country plays, with many of our leading industries leading the way globally. I want this country to be a good place to do business and to set up a business, and to continue to lead the world with competitive tax rates.
This debate is actually about fairness and transparency. To follow up something that the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said, the fact is that the Minister could not tell us last week what effective tax rate Google would be paying. I can tell him what the effective tax rate is for businesses in my constituency—what rate of corporation tax they will be paying—so why is it so difficult for Google, a multinational giant, to be transparent with the public about the rate of tax it is paying?
Mr Gauke: Just to be clear, the statutory rate is 20% and that applies to everybody. There are businesses that will have a lower effective rate, entirely lawfully and in accordance with the spirit of the law, because, for example, they make use of capital allowances or they might have losses that they are making use of. Someone having an effective rate below the statutory rate does not mean that they are conducting avoidance activity.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 992
Wes Streeting: That is a fair point, but of course many tax experts have estimated that Google is paying an effective tax rate of 3%. If that is not the case, we need to see the numbers that give us that assurance. We do not doubt the difficulties here. In an increasingly globalised world, where intellectual property and the growth of internet companies makes this more important in the debate about tax, these are difficult issues to grasp, but there is no hint of fairness or transparency about this deal, and that is what we are seeking with this debate.
We would have more confidence if there had been consistent messages on this issue from both the Government and Google. On 23 January, the Tory Treasury Twitter account—not the most accurate of sources—claimed that the
“Google tax bill is for years 2005-2011, almost all under Labour”.
Yet Google Ltd’s account for the period ended 30 June 2015 reported
“a liability to HMRC of £130 million in respect of additional taxes and interest due for prior accounting periods and the current accounting period.”
The Minister says that there has been no sweetheart deal, but, as I asked him earlier, how can he give us that assurance if he has not seen the deal and is as far removed from it as he says. The Chancellor said it was a “major success”. How can he laud it as a major success if he is not close enough to the deal? If it is such a major success, why did the Prime Minister in Downing Street run so far away from that claim? Why has the Financial Secretary to the Treasury not once in recent weeks stood by his Chancellor in saying that this deal is a major success? I believe that it is because he knows that it is nothing of the sort, and that this Government look deeply out of touch with the public.
Labour were accused of attacking HMRC staff. The fact is that HMRC has a responsibility to apply tax law. It has a duty to go for the full rate of tax due, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) pointed out, it has not always applied that duty. I am sure that, following the work of the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, we will find that the issue at HMRC is to do with resourcing and extra teams and whether there are the people and the capacity to pursue not just the current claims and outstanding tax, but the historical backlog that exists as well.
Also of concern is the fact that Google itself has made some rather odd claims. On the one hand, we see senior Google executives writing to the newspapers about how great the deal is and how they have stood by their obligations, while, on the other, they are committing to paying more tax in the future. What is the reality? Is it that Google is paying the tax liability that is due; that it has somehow got away with it and plans to pay more in the future; or that it sees tax as a means of charity towards the state and it is willing to prop up the Treasury coffers a bit more generously in the future? Whatever the reality, there is deep inconsistency in the messages from the Government and Google.
We should look at the comments recently made by the Mayor of London who went as far as to suggest that finance directors have a fiduciary duty to minimise tax exposure. That cannot possibly be the case. If the
3 Feb 2016 : Column 993
Mayor of London looked at the duties under the Companies Act 2006, he would see that they also have to make reference to
“the likely consequences of any decisions in the long term…the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others”—
“the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment”.
There is a problem with the ethos of those on the Conservative Benches. Many of them see tax as a form of theft, whereas we see it as a civic responsibility and duty and as a means of creating a more civilised society. I want businesses in my constituency to pay their fair share of tax, and indeed they do. It is not unreasonable to expect a multinational company such as Google to do the same. The Government need to do much more to ensure that there is transparency for all such companies in all of the jurisdictions in which they operate.
4.28 pm
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): First, let me draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. A company in which I have an investment is, in a very small way, a competitor of Google’s. If it ever makes a profit, it will always pay—at least while I am involved—the correct rate of corporation tax, as most companies do. All of us on the Conservative Benches believe that that is absolutely right. None the less, this is a global problem.
In the 1960s, Zhou Enlai was asked about the consequences of the French revolution 200 years earlier, and he said that it was too early to tell. The same applies to globalisation. These are all global problems. In the US, the effective rate of corporation tax has halved in the past 60 years. Apple has £120 billion of assets invested offshore. It does not want to repatriate them as it will have to pay tax. The Opposition sound like a failed football manager turned TV pundit who lost all their games without scoring a goal and who now criticise the new manager for not winning by a big enough margin.
Of course, nobody on the Government Benches would countenance tax avoidance. The thin justification is that the arrangement is for shareholders. Only this week, James Anderson, a Google shareholder, said that Google should be paying the effective rate of corporation tax. That is absolutely right. Warren Buffett has gone on record many times saying that companies should pay the going rate of corporation tax. We need to look at the role of advisers. My experience in my business, when these things have come across our desk, is that such a policy has been rejected on the recommendation of tax advisers. Firms such as Ernst and Young, global corporations themselves, are responsible for much of that activity. I wonder whether they have public sector contracts and whether such organisations should be allowed access to public contracts in the light of those activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) asked what we would be saying if we were the parents of Google. If I were the parent of
3 Feb 2016 : Column 994
Sergey Brin, I would say, “Pay your taxes.” The company talks about values. It cannot talk about integrity and not pay its fair share of taxes.
Perhaps we should give companies that do pay their taxes greater prominence and recognition through some kind of kitemark for paying fair levels of tax. Overall, we must rely on the integrity of companies to pay their taxes where they have built their businesses—on the back of British people.
4.31 pm
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this extremely important debate. Clearly, a number of things have gone wrong in the case of Google, but I shall focus on one aspect: the tax treatment of intellectual property. This is a growing part of the economy and we need to get it right.
I draw a distinction between two extremes—on the one hand, a large pharmaceutical company that does a great deal of research and development and employs a large number of people to make a new drug, and, on the other, a company such as Starbucks, which registers its name in Luxembourg, seemingly purely as a tax avoidance device. Between those extremes there is a continuum and Google is somewhere in the middle. It has done some mathematics to make some algorithms, but it also has a brand that is extremely powerful. We need to tighten up on this.
What happens at present is that a name is registered in a low tax domain. That separate company charges a fee to this country, where the work is done. That wipes out the entire tax treatment. That is ridiculous. One thing that is wrong is that the company seems to be able to set the price itself. The Revenue is not auditing it and asking whether that is reasonable. Obviously, maintaining a brand involves some costs, but small costs—perhaps to repaint some signs or to train its marketing people. Those costs cannot be compared to the cost of research and development.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): Does the hon. Lady understand that an awful lot of the cost could be in intellectual property and in ideas held by people overseas? That is not necessarily as cheap as a lick of paint, as she suggests.
Helen Goodman: I was trying to distinguish between real intellectual property and intellectual property that is purely branding. Take the example of the BBC, which sells television programmes. The BBC can get more money for its television programmes than a small television production company, partly because it is called the BBC, even though the actual costs of making the television programme are the same.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether, because of the high value of the brand, the company should pay less tax. I submit that that is a fundamental mistake, because the brand is an asset. What the company is getting in that situation is economic rent. The fact that it has a valuable asset is not a reason for it to pay less tax. That is absurd. If a company invests in a piece of machinery and makes a claim against its capital allowance, over time the amount that it can claim against tax decreases as it moves from the point at
3 Feb 2016 : Column 995
which the investment was made. In cases where the brand is the asset, companies are claiming more over time as they are selling more. I think that is an area where we could very usefully tighten up.
Perhaps this area of tax would be better handled if we had a few more economists looking at the underlying economics and fewer accountants, who seem very comfortable with the way the system works but are not driven by the desire that the rest of us have to make sure that these people pay their fair share.
4.35 pm
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP): Let me first declare that this morning I was elected chair of the all-party Public and Commercial Services Union group, succeeding the shadow Chancellor, who of course will be a hard act to follow. I will be referring to HMRC staff.
Such is the widespread scepticism and lack of public confidence following this deal that the term “to google it” now has a new meaning on the streets of the UK. No longer does it mean logging on to a computer and exploring a search engine; “to google it” now means something else. When members of the public grab their self-assessment forms, they might ask themselves, “Should I google it?”
The Minister had four opportunities—four tests, in my view—to address that widespread scepticism and lack of public confidence. The issue is about the messages that this sends. First, there was no real answer on what methodology was used to make the calculation. More worryingly, although the Minister praised HMRC staff, he did not address why 120 compulsory redundancies were issued to HMRC staff on 28 January. Worse still, there has been no explanation for why the chief executive of HMRC has refused to meet the PCS to try to help mitigate those job losses. That is a message that will be sent to multinational companies. They will wonder why HMRC offices are closing in towns, in many of which it is the largest employer, and why there are staff reductions. They will wonder whether the UK Government are serious about dealing with tax avoidance and tax evasion.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP): Does my hon. Friend agree that taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society and that these multinational companies should be paying their taxes willingly?
Chris Stephens: I agree. In such debates we usually hear Government Members praise the self-appointed TaxPayers’ Alliance. Interestingly, it has not been mentioned today. I agree that taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society.
We heard nothing from the Minister about a financial transactions tax. I support such a tax, particularly a global financial transactions tax, which could bring in £250 billion for national Governments. Surely the UK Government could take a lead in introducing such a tax.
The Minister made no mention of tax havens in UK overseas territories such as the Cayman Islands, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) mentioned. Research by the Tax Justice Network rates the Cayman Islands as the second most significant tax haven in the world. Of
3 Feb 2016 : Column 996
the 279 banks registered there, only 19 are licensed to operate domestically; the other 260 are there to shuffle money from country to country. The Cayman Islands have a population of 56,000, but there are 100,000 registered companies. My hon. Friend mentioned Ugland house. As President Obama has said:
“That’s either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record.”
I believe it is the latter. Where is the action to tackle this? The Government made no mention of that. The Tax Justice Network has said that the UK and its dependent territories and Crown dependencies remain
“by far the most important part of the global offshore system of tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions”.
The fact is that the widespread scepticism means that the public have no confidence in the Government’s handling of this affair or in their ability to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion. That is why I will be supporting the motion today.
4.39 pm
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP): First, I apologise to the shadow Chancellor for missing the first 60 seconds or so of his speech.
It has been suggested that we are criticising the team manager for not winning by a big enough margin. If this was such an important victory, why is the team manager refusing all interviews, choosing instead to send the reserve team goalkeeper—not to do interviews about the game, but to talk about everything and anything apart from the great victory?
The Government have tabled an amendment that is four times as long as the motion they seek to amend, and it doesnae mention Google or the £130 million great victory anywhere. It is a strange victory indeed if the Government are trying to hide it under the biggest, deepest, darkest bushel they can find. It is to the Government’s eternal shame, and it exposes Parliament to ridicule and brings it into disrepute, that every time over the last week that Opposition Members—not only from Labour, but from other Opposition parties as well—have asked for a justification for this deal, every Minister has answered by batting the issue across to the Labour Benches, like the most expensive ping-pong ball in the history of sport.
I commend the shadow Chancellor for being prepared to acknowledge that the previous Labour Government’s actions might not stand up to much scrutiny on this issue. Labour’s downfall started when it got far too cosy with the big, anonymous multinational institutions. I suspect that quite a few people on the Labour Benches today would accept that with hindsight.
If all that the Government can say to defend their actions is that the previous Government were even worse, that sends the message to the people of these islands that the actions of both Governments are indefensible. A Government who try to defend the indefensible by saying that somebody else was more indefensible really are not delivering much for the people of these islands.
If we are to believe the selective information that Google has put out about how productive its 2,300 employees have been, the equivalent, taking a generous Back-Bench MP’s salary, would be for each of us to deliver less than 25p value added per year for each of
3 Feb 2016 : Column 997
our constituents. I doubt whether any of us would fancy the next election if that was all that we were delivering. It simply is not credible for a major successful multinational business to suggest that it employs so many people to deliver so little profit for its shareholders.
This is not just about the technicalities of what is admittedly very complex legislation; it is about Parliament holding HMRC and Google to account and about allowing the public to hold us to account. The clear message coming from the overwhelming majority of the 60 million-plus people represented in this Chamber today is that this Google deal stinks. It cannot possibly be justified, and it is interesting that the Government are not even attempting to defend it in the amendment.
4.42 pm
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab): The subject of tax avoidance and tax evasion is of real relevance to my constituents, for whom paying tax is not negotiable—unlike, it seems, for large corporations such as Google.
The rationale for public service cuts has been based on the notion that we, as a country, cannot afford to pay for public services in the way we have done—that we cannot afford to meet the basic needs of our citizens because of the debts facing the country.
It is important to note that the Government have been in office for nearly six years. During that time, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been able to take action on these issues. The limited progress that the Government have made is welcome, but the Google deal flies in the face of it. Their attempts to blame the previous Labour Government every time their record is questioned is wearing thin—even with their own supporters.
Issues of taxation and who pays are all the more pertinent when the Conservatives’ political choices mean that jobs are being lost and services closed, and that people are suffering as a result. The cuts agenda the Government have embarked on over the past 69 months has hit my constituents extremely hard. The cumulative cuts that the St Helens and Knowsley councils, which cover my constituency, have faced since the Government took office add up to a staggering £168 million. The £94 million cut from Knowsley’s budget is the highest of any council in the country, despite the area having some of the highest levels of deprivation and lowest incomes. That has meant unavoidable, savage cuts to services across the board, and that is clear to everyone in my constituency. However, the detail of why Google is paying only £130 million in tax is still shrouded in secrecy.
This is about a choice as to who pays what. The Government have made very clear who has no option but to pay and for whom the issue is negotiable. Local government is now meant to self-finance, with the phasing out of the block grant, and authorities are meant to generate business activity to get tax from it. So who is paying while Google does not? Many small, and large, businesses in my constituency pay their tax—they have no choice. The nature of their business means that they cannot physically move premises like some other businesses. They have no option to relocate their profits to other countries, as is convenient for others. If the Chancellor
3 Feb 2016 : Column 998
wishes local authorities to generate more of their own finances for themselves and rely less on central Government, how can he justify businesses that make a large contribution to local economies and which pay their taxes locally subsidising, in effect, the likes of Google and other multinationals?
4.45 pm
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made such excellent contributions to this debate, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who said that the Government have lost the argument on transparency. Other Members raised important issues about how we now seem to have one tax rule for large companies—multinationals—but another for small businesses in our country. We heard about the use of tax havens, transfer pricing, and the fact that the Tories cannot claim that they have continued Labour’s progress on this issue. I pay tribute to the work of those who have campaigned for tax justice, including Richard Murphy, Christian Aid and others, as well as the Co-operative movement, with its campaign for a fair tax mark that includes country-by-country reporting.
Over the past week, the Google tax settlement issue has shocked us all. The Chancellor cut a lonely figure when he tweeted that that tax deal was a “victory”. The tweet had scarcely had a chance of a retweet before Downing Street distanced itself and MPs in all parts of this House called the deal derisory. Questions then came thick and fast about how we could have reached a settlement that effectively implied a 3% tax rate. It was the moment when, as one journalist wrote,
“Google lost the argument in the court of public opinion.”
Yes, there is a lot to admire about Google. Millions rely on the access to knowledge and information that the Google search engine helps to put at our fingertips, and innovative products pushing at the frontier of our digital age have transformed our personal and working lives. However, we cannot tolerate this huge global business not playing fair when it comes to tax. We now know for a fact that Google has been short-changing us for more than a decade. Whatever else it has done, this settlement proves that fact.
The deal has left a series of questions in its wake. Do we know whether Google is paying its fair share of taxes, as it tells us? We do not know, because the deal is shrouded in secrecy, but there is lots to suggest that it is not. Only this week, we heard that Google’s parent company, Alphabet, is now the world’s most valuable company, with a valuation of $568 billion. In just four years, Google paid its chairman a total of £166 million—more than it paid in UK taxes for 10 years.
We support and celebrate success, but this is an issue of fairness. Many are therefore asking a second question—after his tweet, can we trust the judgment of the Chancellor on this issue? Can we trust the judgment of a man who describes what is effectively a 3% tax rate for the world’s most valuable company as a “victory”? In 2014 alone, Google UK made an estimated £1 billion profit; 20% tax on that alone would have been £200 million, enough for 4,000 police officers. Fairness in the tax system is important for us all, and this is not a victim-free zone. When global companies such as Google do not pay their fair share, businesses and families in the UK take a hit. We have all heard from businesses in our constituencies that
3 Feb 2016 : Column 999
wonder why there is one rule for large multinationals and another for them. British families lose out, too, because uncollected taxes mean revenue forgone, with bigger cuts to public services and lower levels of investment when we need it the most.
There is another reason for questioning the Chancellor’s judgment. How can people trust the judgment of a man who thinks it is right to undermine and demoralise his tax-collecting agency? It is a classic example of a false economy—short-term cuts that have long-term costs. Why has the inquiry, which was set up under the Labour Government in 2009, taken more than six years? Nobody knows, seemingly not even the Chancellor. If ever a situation showed a lack of political will, it is this one.
People’s trust in the Chancellor and in the fairness of the tax system has been undermined further by two recent reports. The Chancellor and 16 different Tory Ministers have had face-to-face talks with Google bosses over the last two years, but did any of them raise the issue of the company’s tax structures? Perhaps the Minister can tell us today.
People feel a growing sense of huge injustice when large multinationals can shift their profits so easily and avoid the taxes that they should be paying. Now we find out that, only last year, Tory MEPs were instructed on six occasions to vote against proposals to clamp down on multinationals that engage in aggressive tax avoidance. In addition, they have voted repeatedly against measures to tackle tax evasion.
The Chancellor has even failed to apply his Google tax to Google. Perhaps he can tell us whether the Google tax—the diverted profits tax—would have applied if a deal had not been reached. Things need to change, and we believe that the Chancellor has a duty to take steps to restore public confidence in how HMRC operates in cases such as this. He must now address widespread concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding the deal and show us how the deal was reached so that it can be scrutinised by Parliament and the public. Few can understand how HMRC accepted at face value Google UK’s claim that it, a company with more than 2,000 UK employees, does not have a permanent establishment in the country for corporation tax purposes.
Since last week, we have seen this deal unravel. Every step of the way, the Chancellor’s failure of judgment has been apparent. It is not the first time that the Chancellor has failed to stand up for people in Britain. He is hurting, not helping, Britishbusinesses and families. We need renewed focus and action on tax avoidance and tax evasion, and a real plan to close the UK tax gap. That is what Britain deserves and the British people expect. We need a plan that puts transparency and fairness first—a plan through which we work to reach international agreement on country-by-country reporting and drive forward its implementation. The deal, and the way in which it came about, must not be allowed to set a precedent. If the Chancellor will not act, Labour stands ready. I urge all hon. Members to vote with us in the Aye Lobby.
4.53 pm
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds):
The budget deficit that we inherited from the previous Labour Government was £153 billion. That is equivalent to nearly £6,000 for every household in the country. When a Government inherit such a deficit, one
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1000
of the first things that they go after is the money that is supposed to be coming in, but is not. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary set out comprehensively at the start of the debate, no Government have done more than we have to crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
The Government crackdown, led by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, has resulted in more than 40 changes to tax law to close loopholes that Labour left in place. Among those changes was the world-leading diverted profits tax, which stops multinational companies shifting their UK profits to other countries. That policy alone will bring in an extra £1.3 billion from multinational corporations by the end of the Parliament, some directly but some, more importantly, as a result of its deterrent behavioural impact. I believe that the Government can be proud of that record, but we need to continue to do more and we are doing so. Tax avoidance is a global problem and it calls for global solutions.
To be clear, corporation tax is not a tax on the sales that happen in this country, or even a tax on the profits that derive from the sales that happen in this country. The system that operates internationally is that profits should be allocated on the basis of what is called “economic activity” in each country. Economic activity is not just about sales, but about where research and development takes place, where the various stages of production take place and so on. In short, that was a simpler formula to work out in the 1920s, when the world tax system came into being, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), in his entertaining style, reminded us. Since then, there has been a move from manufactures to services, from the tangible to the intangible, and from the mechanical and the edible to the digital.
This Government have embarked on a programme to tighten the rules and the definitions. Domestically, we have acted to prevent companies trying to take advantage of ambiguities. Internationally, we are working to plug gaps and address loopholes.
Helen Goodman: Will the Minister give way?
Damian Hinds: I cannot give way because of the time. I apologise to the hon. Lady.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that there is “literally nothing” that any one national Government can do unilaterally about some of the loopholes. That is why we are working together with our international partners. We led the debate on updating the international tax rules by initiating the G20-OECD base erosion and profit shifting projects during our presidency of the G8. We were the first country to take action to implement the G20-OECD recommendations to help us better to align the location of taxable profits with the location of economic activity. As part of the implementation of the recommendations, the UK last week signed an agreement with 30 other tax administrations to share country-by-country reports from next year. We now want agreements on making information public, as was spelled out in our manifesto. We will continue to lead any multilateral debates in this area.
We know that to achieve sustainable and long-term economic growth, to drive up productivity and to carry on creating jobs we need internationally competitive
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1001
taxes. We are clear, however, that those taxes must be paid. In 2009-10, the tax gap—the difference between tax liabilities and the amount of tax collected—was 7.3%; last year, it had fallen to 6.4%. Over the last Parliament, HMRC secured more than £100 billion in compliance revenues. In the spending review, the Chancellor approved an additional £800 million of funding for HMRC to recover an additional £7.2 billion of taxes, which is a great deal for the British taxpayer.
Let me be clear: HMRC investigates tax impartially. No organisation or individual gets preferential treatment because of their size or because of their income. Let me remind hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), that during the tenure of the Labour party in government, the House of Commons reaffirmed and enshrined in law the long-standing principle of confidentiality through the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The principle of taxpayer confidentiality means that HMRC cannot publish details of a settlement. That is a fundamental principle of the tax system of every major economy, including ours: there is no ministerial involvement in this country. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) asked how we can know that there has not been a sweetheart deal. HMRC publishes online its litigation and settlement strategy, which makes it clear that the department cannot and will not settle for anything less than the full tax, interest and penalties payable under the law.
My time is very short, but I want to respond briefly to a couple of points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) secured a debate in this place on the HMRC office estate. As he knows, the plan is to concentrate expertise in a number of regional centres, which will make interaction between the areas of expertise more straightforward and, indeed, improve career opportunities for many people. The number of HMRC staff dealing with large businesses is not going down; it is going up in line with the increased investment that, as I have mentioned, the Chancellor has committed to tackling evasion and avoidance.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) talked, rightly, about developing countries. It is right that we give extra support to countries that need it. In 2015-16, HMRC established a new tax experts team to support a number of developing countries. I would be happy to take him through more of the detail of that if we had the time.
We had excellent and informative speeches from, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). My hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for Croydon South (Chris Philp) reminded us of the record of the last Labour Government, but I fear that the Opposition’s current plans are much worse. They claim that they want to make businesses pay more tax in the UK, but in truth their policies would drive companies away from this country, which would mean fewer jobs, lower wages and a weaker economy. This week, we have learned that they want to put taxes up not just for businesses, but for working people.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1002
To achieve long-term economic growth, we need internationally competitive taxes, but our message has been clear: “If you operate in the UK, you pay tax in the UK, and whoever you are, the same UK law applies.” We will continue to strengthen the law, to close the loopholes and to invest in HMRC’s capacity through additional funding and extra powers. We will continue to lead the world in the fight against international tax avoidance to ensure that the UK has an internationally competitive but fair tax regime. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment and to reject the motion.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House divided:
Ayes 271, Noes 299.
Division No. 184]
[
5 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ahmed-Sheikh, Ms Tasmina
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Arkless, Richard
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bardell, Hannah
Barron, rh Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Black, Mhairi
Blackford, Ian
Blackman, Kirsty
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Boswell, Philip
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brake, rh Tom
Brennan, Kevin
Brock, Deidre
Brown, Alan
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burgon, Richard
Butler, Dawn
Byrne, rh Liam
Cadbury, Ruth
Cameron, Dr Lisa
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cherry, Joanna
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Coffey, Ann
Cooper, Julie
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, rh Jeremy
Cowan, Ronnie
Cox, Jo
Coyle, Neil
Crausby, Mr David
Crawley, Angela
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cummins, Judith
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
David, Wayne
Davies, Geraint
Day, Martyn
Docherty, Martin John
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donaldson, Stuart Blair
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Dowd, Peter
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Elliott, Tom
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Fellows, Marion
Ferrier, Margaret
Field, rh Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Fletcher, Colleen
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Gardiner, Barry
Gethins, Stephen
Gibson, Patricia
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mary
Goodman, Helen
Grady, Patrick
Grant, Peter
Gray, Neil
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Greenwood, Margaret
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Haigh, Louise
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Carolyn
Hayes, Helen
Hendrick, Mr Mark
Hendry, Drew
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Dame Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hollern, Kate
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Huq, Dr Rupa
Hussain, Imran
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Gerald
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Kane, Mike
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Kerevan, George
Kerr, Calum
Kinahan, Danny
Kinnock, Stephen
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Law, Chris
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Clive
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Long Bailey, Rebecca
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian C.
Lynch, Holly
Mactaggart, rh Fiona
Madders, Justin
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maskell, Rachael
Matheson, Christian
Mc Nally, John
McCabe, Steve
McCaig, Callum
McCarthy, Kerry
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonald, Stewart Malcolm
McDonald, Stuart C.
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGarry, Natalie
McGinn, Conor
McGovern, Alison
McInnes, Liz
McKinnell, Catherine
McLaughlin, Anne
McMahon, Jim
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Monaghan, Carol
Monaghan, Dr Paul
Morden, Jessica
Morris, Grahame M.
Mulholland, Greg
Mullin, Roger
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Newlands, Gavin
Nicolson, John
O'Hara, Brendan
Onn, Melanie
Onwurah, Chi
Osamor, Kate
Oswald, Kirsten
Paterson, Steven
Pennycook, Matthew
Perkins, Toby
Phillips, Jess
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Pugh, John
Rayner, Angela
Reed, Mr Steve
Rees, Christina
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Jonathan
Rimmer, Marie
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, rh Angus
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Ryan, rh Joan
Saville Roberts, Liz
Shah, Naz
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheppard, Tommy
Sherriff, Paula
Shuker, Mr Gavin
Siddiq, Tulip
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Andy
Smeeth, Ruth
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Cat
Smith, Jeff
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Smyth, Karin
Spellar, rh Mr John
Starmer, Keir
Stephens, Chris
Stevens, Jo
Streeting, Wes
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, rh Ms Gisela
Tami, Mark
Thewliss, Alison
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thomas-Symonds, Nick
Thompson, Owen
Thomson, Michelle
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Turley, Anna
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Watson, Mr Tom
Weir, Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Whitford, Dr Philippa
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mr Mark
Wilson, Corri
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Dame Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Woodcock, John
Wright, Mr Iain
Zeichner, Daniel
Tellers for the Ayes:
Vicky Foxcroft
and
Sue Hayman
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Allan, Lucy
Allen, Heidi
Amess, Sir David
Andrew, Stuart
Ansell, Caroline
Argar, Edward
Atkins, Victoria
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Mr Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Bellingham, Sir Henry
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Berry, James
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman, Bob
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Borwick, Victoria
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Robert
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Sir Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burt, rh Alistair
Cairns, Alun
Carmichael, Neil
Cartlidge, James
Cash, Sir William
Caulfield, Maria
Chalk, Alex
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Churchill, Jo
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Cleverly, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Costa, Alberto
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, rh Stephen
Davies, Byron
Davies, Chris
Davies, David T. C.
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Dr James
Davies, Mims
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Donelan, Michelle
Double, Steve
Dowden, Oliver
Drax, Richard
Drummond, Mrs Flick
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Sir Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, rh Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Fernandes, Suella
Field, rh Mark
Foster, Kevin
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Frazer, Lucy
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Fysh, Marcus
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, rh Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Ghani, Nusrat
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Chris
Green, rh Damian
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, rh Robert
Hall, Luke
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, rh Greg
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Sir Oliver
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Heaton-Jones, Peter
Henderson, Gordon
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoare, Simon
Hollingbery, George
Hollinrake, Kevin
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Howlett, Ben
Huddleston, Nigel
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, rh Sajid
Jayawardena, Mr Ranil
Jenkyns, Andrea
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Boris
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kennedy, Seema
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Knight, Julian
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, rh Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lumley, Karen
Mackinlay, Craig
Mackintosh, David
Main, Mrs Anne
Mak, Mr Alan
Malthouse, Kit
Mann, Scott
Mathias, Dr Tania
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Johnny
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Mrs Maria
Milling, Amanda
Mills, Nigel
Milton, rh Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, rh Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Morton, Wendy
Mowat, David
Mundell, rh David
Murray, Mrs Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Dr Matthew
Opperman, Guy
Parish, Neil
Patel, rh Priti
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Philp, Chris
Pickles, rh Sir Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Prentis, Victoria
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pursglove, Tom
Quin, Jeremy
Quince, Will
Raab, Mr Dominic
Redwood, rh John
Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Robinson, Mary
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, rh Amber
Rutley, David
Sandbach, Antoinette
Scully, Paul
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Simpson, rh Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Royston
Solloway, Amanda
Soubry, rh Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Graham
Sturdy, Julian
Sunak, Rishi
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Thomas, Derek
Throup, Maggie
Tolhurst, Kelly
Tomlinson, Justin
Tomlinson, Michael
Tracey, Craig
Tredinnick, David
Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie
Truss, rh Elizabeth
Tugendhat, Tom
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Warburton, David
Warman, Matt
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Wharton, James
Whately, Helen
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, rh Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Craig
Williamson, rh Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Wragg, William
Wright, rh Jeremy
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Jackie Doyle-Price
and
Simon Kirby
Question accordingly negatived.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1003
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1004
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1005
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1006
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
The House divided:
Ayes 303, Noes 261.
Division No. 185]
[
5.14 pm
AYES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Allan, Lucy
Allen, Heidi
Amess, Sir David
Andrew, Stuart
Ansell, Caroline
Argar, Edward
Atkins, Victoria
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Mr Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Bellingham, Sir Henry
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Berry, James
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman, Bob
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Borwick, Victoria
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Robert
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Sir Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burt, rh Alistair
Cairns, Alun
Carmichael, Neil
Cartlidge, James
Cash, Sir William
Caulfield, Maria
Chalk, Alex
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Churchill, Jo
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Cleverly, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Costa, Alberto
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, rh Stephen
Davies, Byron
Davies, Chris
Davies, David T. C.
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Dr James
Davies, Mims
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donelan, Michelle
Double, Steve
Dowden, Oliver
Drax, Richard
Drummond, Mrs Flick
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Sir Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, rh Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Fernandes, Suella
Field, rh Mark
Foster, Kevin
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Frazer, Lucy
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Fysh, Marcus
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, rh Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Ghani, Nusrat
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Chris
Green, rh Damian
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, rh Robert
Hall, Luke
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, rh Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Sir Oliver
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Heaton-Jones, Peter
Henderson, Gordon
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoare, Simon
Hollingbery, George
Hollinrake, Kevin
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Howlett, Ben
Huddleston, Nigel
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, rh Sajid
Jayawardena, Mr Ranil
Jenkyns, Andrea
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Boris
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kennedy, Seema
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Knight, Julian
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, rh Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lumley, Karen
Mackinlay, Craig
Mackintosh, David
Main, Mrs Anne
Mak, Mr Alan
Malthouse, Kit
Mann, Scott
Mathias, Dr Tania
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Johnny
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Mrs Maria
Milling, Amanda
Mills, Nigel
Milton, rh Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, rh Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Morton, Wendy
Mowat, David
Mundell, rh David
Murray, Mrs Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Dr Matthew
Opperman, Guy
Parish, Neil
Patel, rh Priti
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Philp, Chris
Pickles, rh Sir Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Prentis, Victoria
Pritchard, Mark
Pursglove, Tom
Quin, Jeremy
Quince, Will
Raab, Mr Dominic
Redwood, rh John
Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Robinson, Mary
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, rh Amber
Rutley, David
Sandbach, Antoinette
Scully, Paul
Selous, Andrew
Shannon, Jim
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Simpson, David
Simpson, rh Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Royston
Solloway, Amanda
Soubry, rh Anna
Spencer, Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Graham
Sturdy, Julian
Sunak, Rishi
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Thomas, Derek
Throup, Maggie
Tolhurst, Kelly
Tomlinson, Justin
Tomlinson, Michael
Tracey, Craig
Tredinnick, David
Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie
Truss, rh Elizabeth
Tugendhat, Tom
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Warburton, David
Warman, Matt
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Wharton, James
Whately, Helen
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, rh Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Craig
Williamson, rh Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Wragg, William
Wright, rh Jeremy
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Ayes:
Jackie Doyle-Price
and
Simon Kirby
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ahmed-Sheikh, Ms Tasmina
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Arkless, Richard
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bardell, Hannah
Barron, rh Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Black, Mhairi
Blackford, Ian
Blackman, Kirsty
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Boswell, Philip
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brock, Deidre
Brown, Alan
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burgon, Richard
Butler, Dawn
Byrne, rh Liam
Cadbury, Ruth
Cameron, Dr Lisa
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cherry, Joanna
Coffey, Ann
Cooper, Julie
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, rh Jeremy
Cowan, Ronnie
Cox, Jo
Coyle, Neil
Crausby, Mr David
Crawley, Angela
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cummins, Judith
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
David, Wayne
Davies, Geraint
Day, Martyn
Docherty, Martin John
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donaldson, Stuart Blair
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Dowd, Peter
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Elliott, Tom
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Fellows, Marion
Ferrier, Margaret
Field, rh Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Fletcher, Colleen
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Gardiner, Barry
Gethins, Stephen
Gibson, Patricia
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mary
Goodman, Helen
Grady, Patrick
Grant, Peter
Gray, Neil
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Greenwood, Margaret
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Haigh, Louise
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Carolyn
Hayes, Helen
Hendrick, Mr Mark
Hendry, Drew
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Dame Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hollern, Kate
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Huq, Dr Rupa
Hussain, Imran
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Gerald
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Kane, Mike
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Kerevan, George
Kerr, Calum
Kinahan, Danny
Kinnock, Stephen
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Law, Chris
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Clive
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Long Bailey, Rebecca
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian C.
Lynch, Holly
Mactaggart, rh Fiona
Madders, Justin
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maskell, Rachael
Matheson, Christian
Mc Nally, John
McCabe, Steve
McCaig, Callum
McCarthy, Kerry
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonald, Stewart Malcolm
McDonald, Stuart C.
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGarry, Natalie
McGinn, Conor
McGovern, Alison
McInnes, Liz
McKinnell, Catherine
McLaughlin, Anne
McMahon, Jim
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Monaghan, Carol
Monaghan, Dr Paul
Morden, Jessica
Morris, Grahame M.
Mullin, Roger
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Newlands, Gavin
Nicolson, John
O'Hara, Brendan
Onn, Melanie
Onwurah, Chi
Osamor, Kate
Oswald, Kirsten
Paterson, Steven
Pennycook, Matthew
Perkins, Toby
Phillips, Jess
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Rayner, Angela
Reed, Mr Steve
Rees, Christina
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Jonathan
Rimmer, Marie
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, rh Angus
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Ryan, rh Joan
Saville Roberts, Liz
Shah, Naz
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheppard, Tommy
Sherriff, Paula
Shuker, Mr Gavin
Siddiq, Tulip
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Andy
Smeeth, Ruth
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Cat
Smith, Jeff
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Smyth, Karin
Spellar, rh Mr John
Starmer, Keir
Stephens, Chris
Stevens, Jo
Streeting, Wes
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, rh Ms Gisela
Tami, Mark
Thewliss, Alison
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thomas-Symonds, Nick
Thompson, Owen
Thomson, Michelle
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Turley, Anna
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Watson, Mr Tom
Weir, Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Whitford, Dr Philippa
Williams, Hywel
Wilson, Corri
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Dame Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Woodcock, John
Wright, Mr Iain
Zeichner, Daniel
Tellers for the Noes:
Vicky Foxcroft
and
Sue Hayman
Question accordingly agreed to.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1007
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1008
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1009
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1010
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
That this House notes that the Government has taken action to promote international cooperation in relation to clamping down on tax avoidance by multinational companies, challenging the international tax rules which have not been updated since they were first developed in the 1920s, that multilateral cooperation at an international level has included the UK playing a leading role in the G20-OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project to review all international tax rules and increase tax transparency, and as part of that, the UK was the first country to commit to implementing the OECD country-by-country reporting model within domestic legislation, that the Government recognises the case for publishing country-by-country reports on a multilateral basis, that the Government has introduced more than 40 changes to tax law, that the various measures taken by the Government have included the introduction of a diverted profits tax aimed at targeting companies who use contrived arrangements to divert profits from the UK, stopping the use of offshore employment intermediaries to avoid employer National Insurance contributions, stopping companies from obtaining a tax advantage by entering into contrived arrangements to turn old tax losses or restricted use into more versatile in-year deductions, and requiring taxpayers who are using avoidance schemes that have been defeated through the courts to pay the tax in dispute with HM Revenue and Customs upfront, and that the Government is committed to going further, enabling HM Revenue and Customs to recover an additional £7.2 billion over the Parliament.'.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1011
Public Finances: Scotland
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel): I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Scottish National party.
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State to move the motion, I remind the House that there are a lot of speakers and very little time, so there will be a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, but still we might not get everybody in. With that in mind, if the Front Benchers could make their contributions more like bullet points than great oratorical flourishes, the House will be grateful.
5.26 pm
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab): I beg to move,
That this House notes the ongoing negotiations between the Scottish and UK Governments in the Joint Exchequer Committee on a revised fiscal framework to accompany the Scotland Bill; regrets that, despite both Governments repeatedly stating that the negotiation of a revised fiscal framework would be concluded by autumn last year, no agreement has been reached; further regrets the complete lack of transparency with which negotiations have been conducted; notes that, until agreement is reached, the measures in the Scotland Bill will not be implemented and the substantial new powers it contains will not be deployed for the benefit of the Scottish people; believes that both the UK and Scottish Governments have a duty to ensure that the negotiation of a revised fiscal framework which is fair to Scotland is completed in time for the Scotland Bill to be approved by the Scottish Parliament prior to its dissolution, so that it can use its current and future powers for the benefit of the people of Scotland; and calls on the UK Government to publish all minutes and papers from the Joint Exchequer Committee negotiations, and to assure the House that every effort is being made to ensure that agreement on a revised fiscal framework is reached, and the Scotland Bill is passed, prior to the Scottish Parliament elections.
I am sorry that you do not want an oratorical flourish, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is what I was preparing to give—but never mind; we will continue with the debate. I appreciate that this debate has been curtailed because of the previous debate, which was on an incredibly important issue, and because of the Prime Minister’s statement. We have to accept how the House works in such circumstances.
It is a pleasure to open this debate for the Opposition. At its core, this debate is about the transfer of new powers to Scotland under the Scotland Bill, which completed its passage through the House in November and is currently in the other place. It is worth briefly reflecting on the Bill, to put this debate about Scotland’s public finances and the fiscal framework into context. The Bill had its genesis in the vow and the Smith commission, the recommendations of which were agreed by all five major Scottish political parties. When passed, the Bill will transform the Scottish Parliament into one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world.
Scotland will have control over all income tax, apart from non-savings and non-dividends income, which generated almost £11 billion in revenues in 2013-14. The Scottish Parliament will have the power to vary the rates and bands of income tax, to increase or decrease those revenues. This greatly enhances the powers devolved under the Scotland Act 2012, under which the Scottish Parliament controls just 10p in the pound. On that note, the Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, announced yesterday that, faced with a choice of cutting into Scotland’s future or using the powers of the Scottish Parliament, we would use the latter to set the Scottish
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1012
rate of income tax at 11p, rather than the 10p in the SNP Budget, to invest in that very future for Scotland and to protect the low-paid. We made that point in the debate in the Scottish Parliament today.
These new revenue-raising powers are accompanied by new spending powers, such as control over £2.5 billion of welfare spending. The Scottish Parliament will be able to top up existing UK benefits and, thanks to concerted pressure from Labour and our amendments, will have total autonomy to create new benefits in devolved areas. When these new powers are enacted, the Scottish Parliament will be able to make different choices to create a better Scotland.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Who in the hon. Gentleman’s party speaks for England to make sure that the settlement is fair to England as well as to Scotland?
Ian Murray: The settlement has to be fair to the rest of the UK as well, including England, but I will come to that later.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab): We hear of cheers in the Scottish Parliament this afternoon when the Scottish Finance Minister tried to justify public expenditure cuts by the Tories. Is that not the final proof that the socialist credentials that the SNP claims have no foundation whatsoever?
Ian Murray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because what we have seen this afternoon in Scotland is a Scottish Labour party determined to use the current powers of the Scottish Parliament to try to do something different from Conservative austerity. The result of that is a Scottish Finance Minister and a Scottish Government just managing that Conservative austerity. As I said earlier, when faced with the choice of managing the Tory austerity or creating a different future for Scotland, we have chosen to create that different future.
I was explaining the principles behind the Scotland Bill. However, before the Scotland Bill can be enacted they must be underpinned by a new fiscal framework for Scotland. That runs alongside the legislative process, which is slightly different from what happened with the Scotland Act in 2012.
It is crucial to state that the Smith commission stipulated that the Barnett formula would be retained as the mechanism for determining Scotland’s block grant. That is not in question in this debate. However, Scotland’s block grant will need to be adjusted to reflect both the new tax-raising powers and new expenditure responsibilities that are being devolved, and that is at the heart of today’s debate. Until that revised framework is agreed by the UK and Scottish Governments, the Scotland Bill cannot be enacted and the new powers and responsibilities it transfers cannot be implemented. We need a negotiated agreement in order to move on, otherwise the new powers will lie dormant and Scotland’s financial position in the future will remain very uncertain.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con):
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Barnett formula and the vow, and of course he is right that the Barnett formula will be retained, but he will also be aware that it is not
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1013
based on relative need and therefore is not fair to England, and in particular to Wales. Will he therefore, as a member of a party of the left, support reform of the Barnett formula to make it more progressive for the whole island?
Ian Murray: There is consensus across the entire Chamber that the Barnett formula should stay in place. It was in the vow signed by all the major party leaders who went into the general election. The Smith agreement has been signed by all five political parties, and that includes the maintenance of the Barnett formula. The hon. Gentleman, from the Conservative Back Benches, wants to renew and review the Barnett formula, which means only the Labour party in this Chamber will defend it. It would seem that the policy from the Conservative Back Benches is to do away with Barnett and that the Scottish National party want full fiscal autonomy, which would also do away with the Barnett formula. We will defend the Barnett formula, because it is in the interests of our constituents to do so.
Ian Murray: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again, while bearing in mind that this debate is very much curtailed.
David Mowat: I do not want to do away with the Barnett formula. I would just like to see it revised so it is based on relative need, because that seems to me to be a very fair way forward.
Ian Murray: The Barnett formula is based on that need. It was designed in the 1970s to take into account of not only the contribution that Scotland makes to the United Kingdom but its public service requirements and geographical nature. It commands broad political consensus and I do not think we should break that. That would be a very difficult message to send out.
The message from today is that it is the job of the Scottish and UK Government Ministers to get a deal. We heard today that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who I am delighted is in his place, will be in Edinburgh for talks all day on Monday. The people of Scotland will expect nothing less than a final deal that is signed, sealed and delivered. We support the Scottish Government in their efforts to reach an agreement that is fair, equitable and consistent with the Smith agreement. Again that is not in question, but reach an agreement they must.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): Surely before the Scottish referendum the Scottish people were promised these extra devolved powers and they will be extremely disappointed with all this shilly-shallying around and failure to come to an agreement after 18 months?
Ian Murray: That is the crux of our calling for this Opposition day debate. I will come on very soon to the issues around timescales and what should have been delivered by now, but nobody will forgive us in Scotland, or indeed across the rest of the United Kingdom, for breaking the promise of getting these powers through so that the Scottish Parliament can choose a different course, if it so wishes, than the rest of the UK.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1014
As I was saying, reach an agreement they must. I believe there is broad consensus on this point across the Chamber. Indeed the SNP chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—I am delighted he is in his place—has also said that he wants
“assurances…that a deal will be reached in time.”
We do not agree on very much, but we certainly agree on that particular point. Few people would understand if both Governments were to walk off the job before it was done and instead start a blame game.
I want to highlight two key issues in the debate. The first is the secretive nature of the negotiations and the consistent refusal of both Governments to publish any meaningful papers or minutes from the Joint Exchequer Committee meetings.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I did not mean to interrupt his flow; he is making an important speech. The Communities and Local Government Committee has published an important report today, not about Scottish devolution but about English devolution, and it contains major criticisms of the lack of openness over deal negotiations. Does he share my concern that the Government seem to be operating in an underhand way in relation to these negotiations as well?
Ian Murray: I agree with my hon. Friend. This seems to be very much the way in which this Government operate. We have just had a debate about taxation, and we have also discussed the devolution settlements that the Communities and Local Government Committee’s report mentions. It is important that we have transparency, because the only way to carry the public with us on the fundamental issue of devolution to local communities is to ensure that the arrangements are transparent, robust and democratic.
That brings me to my second concern in this Opposition day debate, which is the need to agree the framework so that the Scotland Bill can be passed in time for the Scottish parliamentary elections in May. For months now, the negotiations in the Joint Exchequer Committee have dragged on behind closed doors, shielded from public scrutiny. According to Scottish Government sources, agreement is as far off as it has ever been, while the tone of the Secretary of State suggests that he is straining every sinew to get a deal. There was always a danger that, away from the spotlight, the two Governments would fiddle and fixate and that the momentum to reach a deal would be lost. And so it has proved. This relates to the concern raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).
At first, agreement was going to be reached by last autumn. The Scottish Secretary consistently referred to an autumn deadline, as did the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister in Scotland, but no agreement materialised. Then the deadline was moved to mid-February. In mid-December, the First Minister talked up the prospect of a Valentine’s day deal, but come January her deputy, Mr Swinney, struck a downbeat note emphasising the big gap between the two Governments. He also introduced an arbitrary deadline of 12 February for a deal on the fiscal framework. If negotiations were not concluded by then, he would not table a legislative consent motion prior to the
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1015
Scottish Parliament’s dissolution before the elections in May. I have yet to find out why that is the case, because the Scottish Parliament does not dissolve until late March. If no agreement is reached, the Scotland Bill will effectively be kicked into the long grass. That would mean no new powers for the foreseeable future.
For all that, I remain confident that if the political will exists, a deal can be reached. To test that political will, however, we need to bring the negotiations out into the open and allow the public to see whether this is brinkmanship or a proper negotiation. From the very beginning, I have bemoaned the absence of transparency at the heart of these negotiations. It is simply unacceptable that the process of redrawing Scotland’s fiscal terrain is taking place behind closed doors in vapour-filled rooms.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that a key reason for the deal to be done before the Scottish parliamentary elections is to give the Scottish electorate some confidence in the promises being made by the political parties on spending and taxation? Does he also agree that there is great interest in this matter across the rest of the United Kingdom because of the asymmetric nature of devolution? We want to see how Scotland uses these powers.
Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without having the Scotland Bill on the statute book and available to be used from 1 April 2017, there will be obfuscation about what can go into party manifestos come May, and we will be having a constant debate about the constitution rather than about the transformation of Scotland. He is also right to suggest that this is not just about a fiscal framework for Scotland. It is important for these negotiations to run in parallel with the Scotland Bill, but they also have significant implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. The no detriment principle for Scotland works both ways; it is also a no detriment principle for the rest of the United Kingdom. That point is often lost in these discussions.
As I was saying, I have bemoaned from the very beginning the absence of transparency. It is simply unacceptable that the process of redrawing Scotland’s fiscal terrain is taking place behind closed doors. David Bell, the respected economist, has noted the secretive nature of these discussions. He said:
“These discussions are taking place behind closed doors with little information publically available about the options being considered and the effects of these options.”
Asked to offer his thoughts on these proceedings, Professor Muscatelli said:
“I will be honest, it is difficult for anybody on the outside to see what exactly the stumbling block is”
in these negotiations. Even the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee—this might be the second time we have agreed—said that the negotiations and the transparency at their heart are “not good enough”. I also warmly welcome the Scottish Affairs Committee’s in-depth inquiry on this issue, which it will publish soon.
I ask why both Governments refuse to publish papers and minutes, as requested. On 9 September, I wrote to the chairs of the Joint Exchequer Committee, John Swinney and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, with the perfectly reasonable request to publish papers and minutes from the meetings, but they refused to do so. I
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1016
also tabled written and oral questions to ask that we be kept updated on the progress of the negotiations and that substantial details of the discussions be placed in the public domain, but, once again, my request was rejected. Both Governments said that they would not provide a “running commentary” on the negotiations, while providing the very same running commentary through the media. Meanwhile people in Scotland are very much in the dark. That has allowed politicians on both sides to seek to exploit the secrecy, rather than getting on with finalising the deal.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): Does that not also trouble my hon. Friend, because it goes back to the very principles of the Smith commission, pillar one of which explicitly said that one challenge faced in this new constitutional settlement was having much stronger, transparent parliamentary scrutiny of the work? It particularly identified the JEC. If we cannot get it right now, what hope do we have for the future?
Ian Murray: That is a timely intervention, because when everyone talks about making sure that the Smith agreement is delivered in spirit and in substance, they tend to forget the bits of the substance that it is inconvenient for them to remember, and that is one such bit. The JEC has not been transparent. One key plank of the Smith agreement was intergovernmental relations, and without that transparency we cannot see whether intergovernmental relations are actually working. One key thing about the whole devolution project, be it in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or in the discussions about England, is to make sure that all the components of that devolved body of the United Kingdom can work together in partnership.
Let me compare these negotiations with the fiscal framework negotiations that sat alongside the Scotland Act 2012. I have here the minutes of the first meeting from that process, which took place on 27 September 2011, and they are a dusty tomb of information, giving details of who attended, points that were discussed, things that were agreed and things that were to come back to be agreed. By contrast, let me give a flavour of the communiqués from this year. The one relating to the 1 February meeting states:
“The Joint Exchequer Committee met in London today, chaired by John Swinney, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy. HM Treasury was represented by…Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
This was the eighth meeting of the JEC since the publication of the Smith Commission report…The Ministers continued their discussion…
Both Ministers agreed to meet next week”.
The minutes on the 21 January meeting again introduce who was at the meeting, with their very long titles. They then state:
“This was the seventh meeting of the JEC since the publication of the Smith Commission report. The Ministers continued their discussion on the indexation methodologies for the Block Grant Adjustments and also discussed the initial transfer of funding for new welfare powers….
Both Ministers agreed to meet again shortly”.
They go on, running to less than a third of a page—a couple of paragraphs of minutes. I am not sure that having no details and no substance is acceptable.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1017
It is not acceptable because the Scottish Government have threatened to veto the Bill if it is “not fair to Scotland.” The problem is that we do not know what, in their opinion, or in the UK Government’s opinion, is a fair deal for Scotland and what that looks like. We do not know in what way the current detail on offer from the UK Government is deficient on that test of fairness. It would appear that the main stumbling block is on the method used for the future indexation of the block grant. Of the methods being considered, the Scottish Government now favour the per capita index deduction. People can go to the Library to find out what that is—I will not explain it at this juncture. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I can go through the formula if Members want, and give a prize if they get the answer at the end. Less than a year ago, however, the Deputy First Minister told the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee that he favoured the indexed deduction, which takes into account population growth. There is clearly some confusion over which method is best for Scotland, which is why transparency of discussions is incredibly important.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP): I understand that the Labour party is feeling a bit sad, because, as it has not been successful enough to be in government in either country, it is not involved in these negotiations. Now that the shadow Secretary of State has the opportunity to have his say, can he please tell us what method of block grant adjustment Labour would favour?
Ian Murray: Well, we do not know—[Laughter.] Let me answer the question! We have not seen the negotiations, but, as the leader of the Scottish Labour party has said, we prefer the per capita index reduction model, because it is important that we have that particular debate. It is strange that the intervention gave the impression that we are being locked out. It is not the Labour party that has been locked out of these discussions, but the Scottish people, which is why we called this debate. We want to shed some light on these very secret discussions.
I noticed that the hon. Lady did not say whether she supports doing something in Scotland with the powers that her party currently has, or whether she is willing just to manage Conservative austerity.
Alex Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Does he agree that there are some amazing parallels between these negotiations and the Prime Minister’s EU negotiations, where we were kept totally in the dark all along and then we found out that there was nothing to see anyway?
Ian Murray: Absolutely. I suspect that that is part of the problem that we have now.
I am conscious of the time, so let me quickly wrap up by paying some attention to the SNP amendment that has been selected in the name of the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I cannot quite fathom why the party has tried to amend what is a very uncontentious motion. I thought that we could work together on this important issue given that we share the same goals for a fair deal for Scotland. Our motion merely reflects the views that have also been expressed by the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. I have no problem at all with the SNP amendment as it is
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1018
written, but it is a wrecking amendment, as it would completely replace everything that we are asking for in our amendment. I wish that the SNP had tabled the amendment as an addendum, and we could have gone forward together in consensus. The purpose of this debate is to get transparency and to ensure that a fair deal is done, and I would have thought that SNP Members would have agreed with that. I welcome the fact that they are now defenders of the Barnett formula, as a few months ago they were voting in this Chamber with the Conservatives to scrap the Barnett formula in favour of full fiscal autonomy. It does pose the question of whether they are really interested at all in getting these particular issues resolved.
Let me finish by talking a little about the democratic deficit, which was the second plank at the heart of these negotiations. We must close that deficit. The Scotland Bill is much too important for us not to do that.
I will conclude by posing a few questions, which I hope can be answered by the Secretary of the State in his opening remarks, or by his colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, at the conclusion of this debate. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced today that he will be in Scotland for more talks on Monday. What are the Secretary of State’s aspirations for that meeting, and is a deal expected at those talks? Does the Secretary of State recognise 12 February as a final deadline, and what will happen if a deal is not reached by that date? Will negotiations continue regardless of dissolution and the Scottish parliamentary elections? Will the Secretary of State publish the final offers from both parties for transparency purposes so that the public can determine whether or not these were good deals for Scotland? Has consideration been given to agreeing a deal for a trial period thus allowing for assessment and adjustment?
Our motion urges both Governments to work together and to stay at the table until a deal is agreed. It also calls on the UK Government to publish all minutes and papers from the Joint Exchequer Committee, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel): Order. I now have to announce the results of today’s two deferred Divisions. On the motion relating to social security regulations, the Ayes were 297 and the Noes were 73, so the Question was agreed. On the motion relating to the social security pensions Order, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 70, so the Question was agreed.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
5.48 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell): Let me add my welcome to this debate this afternoon. A debate on Scottish public spending is important at any time, but it is particularly apposite today, as our colleagues at Holyrood are debating the latest draft Scottish Budget.
I am sure that we will be hearing a lot from SNP members about austerity, even as their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament vote through massive cuts to Scottish local government, while maintaining a council tax freeze which prevents councils from addressing their shortfalls and making use of the new Scottish rate of income tax. Public spending is about choices, and I am
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1019
proud to be part of a Government who cut tax for over 2.3 million people in Scotland, reducing the tax paid by a typical taxpayer by £825 and taking 290,000 Scots out of paying any income tax at all.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State give way?
David Mundell: I have not started yet. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
On the motion and the amendment, let me start by reminding the House what the Government are working on in relation to the fiscal framework. We are implementing the Smith commission—a cross-party agreement for the future of Scotland. I am determined to deliver the legislation required to implement the Smith agreement in full. That is why we are negotiating a new fiscal framework agreement for the Scottish Government. That is what the people of Scotland voted for—a stronger Scottish Parliament in a strong United Kingdom. They did not vote for independence. As the SNP’s former adviser Alex Bell has noted,
“the SNP’s model . . . that it was possible to move from the UK to an independent Scotland and keep services at the same level, without either borrowing a lot more or raising taxes”
We base our position on the principles set out in the all-party Smith agreement. Smith stated that a fiscal framework needed to be agreed—that there should be no detriment at the initial point of devolution, that there should be appropriate indexation to adjust the block grant in future years, that this should be fair to taxpayers across the UK, and that we should address so called “spillover effects”. That means that the Scottish Parliament and Government will take on more economic responsibility and accountability.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP): The Secretary of State quoted the Smith agreement as stating that, at the point of devolution, there should be no detriment to the Scottish public finances, but does he agree that the key to that is ensuring that the fiscal agreement does not build in detriment in the coming years, which is the crux of the deal and the problem in reaching agreement?
David Mundell: The crux of the deal is to deliver a settlement that is fair to Scotland and fair to the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of mechanisms have been set out that could achieve that and they are part of the ongoing negotiation.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State give me a little more information about what he considers to be fair? Will he explain the mechanisms that are being discussed?
David Mundell: If the hon. Lady is new to this debate, she will be able to find many detailed discussions about all the mechanisms. Under the new proposals, the Scottish Government would benefit from good decisions that they take which produce additional revenue for them, but they would bear some of the risk if they take decisions that lead to less revenue than had been anticipated. That is what I think is at the heart of fairness in the proposals being debated.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1020
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): Following on from what my right hon. Friend has just said, does he therefore confirm that the per capita indexed deduction is not the right way forward?
David Mundell: I do not think even my hon. Friend would expect me to express a view because I am not going to negotiate the arrangement on the Floor of the House. I am happy to comment on a number of aspects of the negotiation, but the Deputy First Minister of Scotland has made it abundantly clear to the United Kingdom Government that it is he who is negotiating these arrangements on behalf of the Scottish Government, not MPs, not the First Minister and not members of the Scottish National party. I have confidence in his wish to reach an agreement and to conduct those negotiations, as we have done so far, on the basis that we committed to—that is, by not giving a detailed running commentary.
David Mundell: I give way to the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): We have heard from the Labour party that it does not know which index it favours in these negotiations, and I think that the Secretary of State is saying that he does not have a view about the indexation he prefers. Surely we need to know what both respective parties favour. We know what we want. What does he want?
David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman has just heard me set out the position. We are in an ongoing negotiation, and I remain optimistic that it will reach a positive conclusion. I must say that I do not recognise some media reports that say there is a gulf between the two Governments. I believe that we are both on the same page—one Government might be at the top of the page and the other might be at the bottom, but it is eminently possible for us both to move to the middle. That is what my colleagues the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister will continue to do when they next meet. The Government are doing all we can to reach an agreement based on the Smith principles.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP): The Secretary of State is unwilling to state his position today, but surely he agrees with Professor Anton Muscatelli, and indeed with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, that these powers cannot come at any cost. He must commit today to a position on non-detriment to the Scottish budget.
David Mundell: What I commit to is a fair settlement for Scotland. The discussions are ongoing. I am confident that we will be able to achieve a fair settlement for Scotland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) alluded to the fact that the Joint Exchequer Committee has met eight times, with constant engagement at official level. I have met John Swinney on numerous occasions during this period. Work at official level continues. Senior UK Government officials will meet Scottish Government officials in Edinburgh tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has today confirmed that he will be available all day on Monday for further discussions. We stand ready to agree a deal. Our door is open and our efforts continue.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1021
Stella Creasy: The Minister is setting out the discussions that have taken place and are taking place. I take him back to the Smith principles, to which he alluded, which state that there should be
“pro-active reporting to respective Parliaments of, for example, the conclusions of Joint Ministerial Committee, Joint Exchequer Committee and other inter-administration bilateral meetings established under the terms of this agreement.”
Is he really telling us that refusing today’s request for the minutes meets that principle, because it does not sound like it, and we have had so little detail of so much work?
David Mundell: I am sure that the hon. Lady could find a lot more detail if she studied the Scottish press and looked through the various debates that have been conducted on the issue. We will report what happened in full. I do not recall important negotiations being reported in detail and on a daily basis in the House of Commons or elsewhere when Labour were in government. We do not intend to do that. We intend to reach an agreement that is fair for Scotland and fair for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is where our efforts are focused.
I remain an optimist. We are making progress, and I believe that we will reach an agreement. A deal can and will be reached if both sides want it. I know that the UK Government want a deal, and I believe the Scottish Government when they say that they want one too. The two Governments have agreed to speak again in the coming days. Although there are still some difficult issues to resolve, we remain confident that a deal can be reached that is fair to Scotland and fair to the rest of the UK, now and in the future.
John Redwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who is doing a difficult task with great skill. Has a recent model been produced for how the income tax might work, because we have seen in previous debates that the forecasts for oil revenue were grossly exaggerated, and there is an unfortunate danger that with the collapse of the oil price will come the collapse of oil-related incomes in Scotland, which would have a bad impact on income tax receipts?
David Mundell: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which speaks against those who argued just a few short months ago for full fiscal autonomy. It is quite interesting to look back at the amendment launched by the SNP in November to bring about full fiscal autonomy, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted would create a £10 billion gap in Scotland’s finances. When the SNP asked for that full fiscal autonomy, it did not ask for what they now claim are the levers it needs to grow the Scottish population and offset the risk it is being asked to take on in relation to the Smith commission proposals.
The Government have been as open and transparent as possible in these negotiations, and each meeting has been notified to the House. Just this afternoon, the Chief Secretary appeared before the Scottish Affairs Committee. Last month, we responded in detail to the Economic Affairs Committee in the other place on fiscal devolution, having previously submitted written evidence to that Committee.
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1022
Catherine McKinnell: It is vital that these negotiations have the confidence of not just the Scottish people, but the people of the whole UK. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a significant risk of these negotiations suffering from the same problems as the negotiations over devolution in England, which the Communities and Local Government Committee report published today clearly states have lacked openness?
David Mundell: I do not recognise, for the reasons I have just set out, that those circumstances characterise the negotiations we have been conducting with the Scottish Government, and I make the case that a degree of privacy for negotiations of this type is required.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned deadlines. I do not think in terms of self-imposed or arbitrary deadlines. Personally—keen though I am to have a warm and supportive relationship with the Scottish Government—I have never felt that the St Valentine’s day date had much relevance to this process. I am willing to continue working towards a deal for as long as that takes and for as long as we can. However, the usual channels have agreed to move the next day of Committee on the Scotland Bill in the other place to 22 February, as discussions on the framework continue to progress, to enable us to give their lordships as full an update as possible.
We have shown flexibility in the negotiations. While I cannot, as I have said, give a commentary to the House, Members will have seen via media reports that the UK Government have put compromise proposals on the table. That is a clear signal of our commitment to reach agreement and of our willingness to be as flexible as we can be, within the Smith principles.
Without commenting on the proposals, I would point out that the House will be aware of some of the tenets of those on the table. There are some suggestions that the Scottish Government should retain all income tax raised in Scotland, as well as a guaranteed share of the growth in income tax in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Professor Muscatelli, who was referred to earlier, told the Scottish Parliament that such an approach would not meet the test of taxpayer fairness. This seems, once again, to be the Scottish Government wanting to have their cake and eat it—indeed, to have a slice of everyone else’s cake while they are at it. That might be understandable enough politics, and an understandable enough position to adopt at the start of a negotiation, but it cannot really be said to be a credible position.
Once the powers are devolved, Scotland
“should retain the rewards of our success, as we will bear the risks.” —[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 December 2015; c. 23.]
Those are not my words, but those of John Swinney. Mr Swinney has been very clear in the past about exactly what he meant by “risks”. He meant the risk that Scotland’s population might decline relative to the rest of the UK’s.
When asked at the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee by Malcolm Chisholm MSP if the Scottish Government would seek to be protected from the possibility that the rest of the UK’s population will expand more quickly than Scotland’s, John Swinney was very clear:
“That is another of the wider range of risks that we take on as a consequence of gaining the responsibilities.”
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1023
The Daily Record newspaper, sometimes brandished by SNP MPs, set this out clearly, finding it hard to see why
“a tax-raising Scotland should benefit from a growth in tax receipts in England and Wales”
“there is an undeniable logic”
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP): The Daily Record completely misunderstood how per capita indexed deduction works. Academics have been clear that the Barnett equivalent is per capita indexed deduction. If the Secretary of State supports anything other than PCID, he is attempting to undermine Barnett. Is he trying to scrap Barnett to appease his Back Benchers?
David Mundell: I respect the hon. Lady’s imagination, which, I am afraid, she still sometimes lets run riot. We are committed to the Barnett formula. We are committed to delivering an agreement that is fair to the people of Scotland and fair to the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is what these negotiations are about.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) rose—
David Mundell: The position set out in the Daily Record reflects the reality. If the population of the rest of the UK were to rise at a faster rate than Scotland’s, that would cause an increase in demand on public services such as schools and hospitals in the rest of the UK, which would need to be funded. How could it be fair that those services be denied the funding required to sustain them because part of the income tax growth was being transferred to the Scottish Parliament? What would people in Carlisle, Newcastle or Liverpool say if their local services were not able to keep up with demand because the Scottish budget was being increased?
David Mundell: Let us imagine if the situation were reversed. Does anyone think for a minute that the Scottish Government would accept a deal in which a growth in Scottish income tax relative to the rest of the UK was clawed back by the Treasury in Whitehall, to the detriment of Scottish public services? Of course they would not, and quite rightly. I want Scotland to enjoy the benefits when good decisions are made at Holyrood. As John Swinney said,
“If we take on a responsibility and make a success of it, we should bear the fruit of that; if we get it wrong, we must bear the consequences.”
Ian Blackford: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way—I almost thought I had become invisible. We are having a very important debate. He talked about his responsibility to put the Scotland Bill through this House. Surely he has to see that the fiscal arrangements that are put in place are central to that. He must have a view on what is in Scotland’s best interest if we are to avoid detriment to Scotland. Is he really Scotland’s man in the Cabinet or the Cabinet’s man in Scotland?
David Mundell:
The hon. Gentleman is not invisible, unlike some of his colleagues. He will find that I am very clear on my responsibility, which is to deliver the Scotland Bill and the powers that the people of Scotland voted for comprehensively in the referendum. The fiscal framework underpins that. It is to be based on the
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1024
Smith principles of no detriment and fairness to taxpayers in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. That is what I am determined to achieve. Because my glass is half full, I have confidence in the Scottish Parliament to do what is right for Scotland—to pass a legislative consent motion to agree a fiscal framework. The powers contained in the Scotland Bill will present the Scottish Parliament elected in May with a great opportunity to show how devolution can really benefit the people of Scotland.
I want to say a couple of things about population risk. I do not accept the counsel of despair that says that Scotland needs a more lax immigration system if it is to address the issue of relative population growth. The Government rightly wish to see net immigration come down, and we are taking steps to achieve that, but I am afraid we do still have some way to go. The latest figures show that annual net migration stands at 336,000 and there were 636,000 migrants coming to the UK in the past year. Those are considerable numbers, and if Scotland is not getting a share of that migration, the Scottish Government have some serious questions to answer.
The levers that the Scottish Parliament has over health and education, among other things, can be used to make Scotland the attractive place to live and work that it should be. The powers contained in the Scotland Bill will give the Scottish Government even more levers to make Scotland even more attractive. If they use the new tax powers in the Bill cleverly, they can attract more taxpayers to Scotland to make a contribution, boost the population and increase the tax take. Of course, if they adopt the frankly ludicrous proposals put forward by the Scottish Labour party this week to increase the income tax bill for most Scottish taxpayers by 5%, they may not succeed in making Scotland a more attractive place to live and work.
Let me conclude as I began. We are negotiating in good faith to deliver on the Smith commission principles, and I am confident that a deal can be reached. I give an absolute undertaking to this House that I will do everything in my power to achieve a deal that is fair to Scotland and fair to the whole United Kingdom. I remain optimistic that we can get such a deal, and that our debates can move on to how those new powers and the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament can be used to improve the lives of the people of Scotland.
Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this very short debate finishes at 7 pm, and that there will have to be two Front-Bench winding-up speeches, which I hope will be mercifully brief. Even so, there is very little time, a point of which I know the hon. Gentleman who is about to take the Floor will take note, although he is not subject to a time limit. I call Mr Stewart Hosie.
6.11 pm
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP): I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “accompany the Scotland Bill” to end and add:
“notes that the Smith Commission recommended that a fiscal framework be agreed between the UK and Scottish Governments on the basis that the Barnett Formula be maintained and that Scotland would be no worse or better off simply as a result of the transfer of additional powers; notes the clear statement by the Scottish Government that it will not recommend any fiscal framework
3 Feb 2016 : Column 1025
to the Scottish Parliament that breaches the Smith Commission recommendations and which locks in a long-term financial disadvantage to Scotland; supports the efforts of the Scottish Government to secure a fair arrangement; and urges the UK Government to commit to the principle of no detriment so that a fair framework for the transfer of powers can be agreed and that the people of Scotland can benefit from the additional devolution of powers that they were promised by the UK Government following the referendum on Scottish independence in September 2014.”
Before I turn to the amendment and the motion, I will make a comment or two about the Scottish Secretary’s entertaining contribution. He said that his glass was half full—unlike the Benches behind him. Before he makes jibes about invisible SNP MPs, who are here in rather considerable numbers, he might like to have a glance around him.
The motion is entitled “Public finances in Scotland”, although it is not about the public finances in Scotland. At best, it can be described as being about the fiscal agreement, although in truth it is about the negotiations around the fiscal agreement. There is no reference in the motion to the continuation of the Barnett formula, which is a key point of the negotiations, although it was referenced in the speech. Neither is there any reference in the motion to “no detriment”, an important principle from Smith around which the negotiations are taking place, although it was referenced in the speech.
That does not take away from the fact that the fiscal agreement is vital. As Lord Smith said,