PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
711 Debate on the Address<br />
15 MAY 2013<br />
Debate on the Address<br />
712<br />
[Charlie Elphicke]<br />
My constituents feel that 5 million in this country<br />
could work but do not. They ought to have more<br />
investment and opportunity, and more chances to fulfil<br />
their potential. That is why the reforms to welfare to<br />
make work pay, the reforms to the skills agenda, the<br />
reforms to control migration, and the reforms to control,<br />
police and secure our borders are important—they give<br />
our fellow citizens more of a chance to do well and<br />
succeed in life, and to see their potential unleashed.<br />
Mr Bailey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for belatedly<br />
giving way. His response to my speech—he has attempted<br />
to put words in my mouth that I did not say—demonstrates<br />
the exact problem within the Government. They are<br />
prejudicial and damaging to the carefully constructed<br />
and reasoned debate on immigration that we need in<br />
order to get a policy that suits our economy.<br />
Charlie Elphicke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his<br />
intervention. I have set out my concerns on behalf of<br />
my constituents, who raise immigration on the doorstep<br />
time and again. They simply say to me, “I want my sons<br />
and daughters to have a chance. I want to be able to get<br />
a job, do well and succeed in life.” The Conservative<br />
party is the party of aspiration and success, and the<br />
party of realising the potential that each and every one<br />
of us has. I support the Government’s reforms.<br />
I also support the Government’s reforms on tax<br />
avoidance and evasion. Let us imagine the Labour<br />
party’s response if the Government doubled income tax<br />
and let “their chums” in big business off the hook.<br />
There would be howls of rage, and accusations that the<br />
Government are on the side of the rich and attacking<br />
the poor—accusations that they are latter-day sheriffs<br />
of Nottingham—but that is exactly what happened in<br />
13 years of Labour government. Income tax receipts<br />
went up by 81%. The working people of this country<br />
were soaked with Labour party taxes. Meanwhile, leaving<br />
aside oil duties, corporation taxes went up by only 6%.<br />
Such is the legacy of the prawn cocktail offensive,<br />
representatives of which are in the Chamber.<br />
The Labour Government sold the pass on fair and<br />
open competition for smaller businesses in this country<br />
in favour of large multinationals. People who work hard<br />
for a living were hit with high income taxes while large<br />
businesses were allowed to avoid taxes on an industrial<br />
scale. That is the legacy of 13 years of Labour. I am<br />
delighted that the Chancellor and the Queen’s Speech<br />
rightly take action on that.<br />
YouGov polls show that 62% of the public consider<br />
legal tax avoidance—it is all perfectly legal, is it not?—to<br />
be unacceptable. A ComRes poll has found that 84%<br />
agree that the Government should crack down on tax<br />
avoidance by businesses operating in the UK. Indeed,<br />
60% are prepared to call the bluff of every large corporation<br />
that threatens to disinvest from the rich, highly vibrant<br />
and successful UK market, saying that the Government<br />
should crack down on business tax avoidance even if it<br />
caused unemployment and caused some companies to<br />
leave the UK.<br />
That is how strongly the British people feel. I feel<br />
strongly, and I was delighted to hear that my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) does, too.<br />
The Government are right to deal with the legacy of tax<br />
avoidance on an industrial scale. They are right to<br />
tackle the problem as an international problem, requiring<br />
international action. I therefore welcome the Chancellor’s<br />
use of the UK presidency of the G8 to take collective<br />
action to deal with tax avoidance and evasion.<br />
In particular, we need to reform tax presence. The<br />
idea that Amazon is based in Luxembourg defies reality<br />
to the ordinary person. They look askance at Amazon<br />
warehouses from the motorway and just do not buy the<br />
idea that Amazon is based in Luxembourg. The rules<br />
need to be updated to cope with the globalised, competitive,<br />
internet-enabled world in which we live.<br />
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): My<br />
hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. As well as<br />
welcoming the Government’s initiative on tax evasion<br />
and tax avoidance, will he join me in lamenting the fact<br />
that criminal convictions for tax evasion plummeted to<br />
107 in the last year of the previous Government?<br />
Charlie Elphicke: Absolutely. We need to send a clear<br />
message that everyone should pay a fair share of taxes.<br />
We have had too much unfairness for too long.<br />
It is also important to reform the rules on transfer<br />
pricing. Starbucks has been the whipping boy for something<br />
that is done on a consistent basis by all large international<br />
businesses—accountants call it “supply chain optimisation”.<br />
Action to tackle it would be fiercely resisted, but it is<br />
something we should do. It is not right that profit<br />
parking by international tax planners means that our<br />
Exchequer does not receive its fair share.<br />
Part of the agenda must be a positive, engaging<br />
discussion with the European Union where we say,<br />
“Look, these are the reforms we need.” I am pleased to<br />
see that the Chancellor has been getting the Germans<br />
on board and talking to the French. Indeed, he should<br />
talk to the US, because it too is losing tax revenues.<br />
Profits that should go back to the States get parked in<br />
tax havens, so Uncle Sam loses out as well. This is an<br />
international problem that needs to be dealt with<br />
internationally.<br />
In Europe, a key reform must be to look again at the<br />
parent subsidiary directive, which a German MEP recently<br />
described as the heartland of tax avoidance, and which<br />
is too often abused. We need to ensure that the EU<br />
works positively with member states to help to secure<br />
their tax bases. The public finances of every member<br />
state in the EU are under pressure. Every member state<br />
in the EU should see it as in their interest to take<br />
effective, international co-operative action to deal with<br />
this problem that we all face. It is high time we stood up<br />
to large international businesses and said, “We have to<br />
secure our tax base.” We have to secure a fair deal for<br />
each individual who is living in this country, so that<br />
they pay a fair share of income tax while large international<br />
corporations pay a fair share of corporation tax. We<br />
must ensure that there is a level competitive playing<br />
field for home-grown businesses, just as much as there is<br />
a level competitive playing field for international businesses.<br />
That would be the right settlement and tax framework<br />
for the UK and all our European neighbours.<br />
5.1 pm<br />
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab):<br />
I think that some of us who have sat through this debate<br />
find it regrettable that, to a large extent, it has been<br />
hijacked by the obsessively anti-European faction in the