19:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 240 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 0 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 308 / Noes: 233 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Sixth form colleges (exemption from VAT)—
‘In Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (Exemptions), in Group 6 (Education), the following shall be added at the end of Note (1) (description of eligible body)—
“(g) a sixth form college”.’.
New clause 10—VAT: review—
‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) or 31(2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fully reviewed the impact of any such Order on jobs, living standards and businesses, making reference to the HMRC Consultation “VAT: Addressing Borderline Anomalies”, and placed a copy of the review in the Library of the House of Commons.’.
New clause 12—Rate of VAT—
‘(1) In section 2(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (Rate of VAT) for “20 per cent.” substitute “17.5 per cent.”.
(2) Subsection (1) shall have effect from Royal Assent and shall expire at such time as the Government presents to Parliament a report stating that the UK economy has returned to strong growth.’.
Government amendment 17.
Government new schedule 1—‘Categorisation of supplies.
Government amendments 18 to 20.
Mr Gauke
A number of VAT measures are to be debated today. To help the House, let me outline how I intend to deal with them. I will first address new clause 4, which relates to VAT on face-value vouchers, before turning to Government amendment 17 and new schedule 1, which address VAT anomalies. I am also conscious that a number of new clauses have been tabled by other right hon. and hon. Members, which I will respond to more fully later in the debate. I will also address amendments 18 to 20, which are consequential amendments dealing with VAT anomalies.
New clause 4 is a Government change to protect revenue. It guards against the possibility of widespread VAT avoidance by the use of so-called single-purpose face-value vouchers. Because of the seriousness of the threat, I announced the change by way of a written ministerial statement on 10 May. Following a decision by the European Court of Justice in May, we need to amend our legislation as it relates to single-purpose face-value vouchers, such as phone cards, so that VAT is due when such vouchers are issued.
We need to act with immediate effect to prevent a loophole due to the mismatch between the ECJ decision and current UK legislation. This could occur because individuals could argue that VAT cannot be collected on redemption by virtue of the Court’s decision, and it cannot be collected on issue by virtue of UK legislation. Therefore, the new clause protects around £200 million of revenue a year and guards against avoidance that could otherwise run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
The changes made by new clause 4 will remove single-purpose face-value vouchers from the UK’s VAT regime. For face-value vouchers more generally, normal VAT rules will apply and they will be taxed when they are first sold. There is also a transitional rule to ensure the taxation of vouchers that were issued before 10 May but used to pay for goods and services after that date, other than where that would lead to double taxation.
It might be helpful to hon. Members if I provide a little background to the new clause. As I have said, the issue arose in connection with a recent decision of the European Court of Justice concerning the VAT treatment of cross-border supplies of single-purpose vouchers, in this case phone cards supplied by a business in the UK to customers in other member states. Most member states tax single-purpose vouchers when they are issued, but in the UK the issue is disregarded and VAT becomes due only when the vouchers are used to obtain the underlying goods or services. This treatment is welcomed by UK businesses, because it delays the point at which they have to account for VAT, so creating a cash-flow advantage and an absolute saving on those vouchers that are issued but never redeemed.
However, in the case before the European Court of Justice, the business concerned complained that the difference in treatment between the UK and some other member states caused double taxation, because VAT was due in the member state where the card was sold to the final consumer and again in the UK when it was used to pay for telephone calls. The Court found against the UK’s approach in such a way that, until UK law was changed, suppliers of single-purpose face-value vouchers could have escaped VAT altogether. In the current market, that would have led to a tax loss of £200 million a year. In addition, if UK law had not been changed there would have been the risk of widespread avoidance involving the use of single-purpose vouchers, which could have led to a significant loss of tax.
To give an example, a car manufacturer could have issued a face-value voucher for a new car of £15,000, which the customer could then redeem at his local dealership. UK law said that there was no tax on the issue of the voucher, and the Court of Justice of the European Union said that there was no supply at redemption and, therefore, no tax. That may be an extreme example, but it illustrates the problem that could arise in a variety of retail scenarios.
The changes that new clause 4 make would remove single-purpose face-value vouchers from the UK’s VAT regime. For face-value vouchers more generally, this means that normal VAT rules will apply, and such vouchers will be taxed when first sold. There is also a transitional rule to ensure the taxation of vouchers that were issued before 10 May but used to pay for goods or services after that date, other than when that would lead to double taxation, but the Court’s definition of what constitutes a single-purpose voucher allowed us to retain the UK’s treatment for most vouchers.
The Court took the view that a single-purpose voucher is one that can be used to obtain goods or services of only one type, and which are subject to a single rate. Single-purpose face-value vouchers that are for one type of good or service form only a small proportion of the overall market for face-value vouchers, because most face-value vouchers can be exchanged for a range of goods or services. For example, a cinema voucher may be exchanged for tickets as well as for confectionary. Both the entry to see the film and the confectionary make suppliers liable to standard-rate VAT, but as they cannot be said to be of the same type the voucher is not caught by the judgment. We therefore expect the change to affect a relatively small number of businesses, and I hope that that explanation is helpful to the House.
In conclusion on face-value vouchers, the new clause is a proportionate response to the significant risk of tax loss arising from the use of single-purpose vouchers. It is carefully targeted against the risks and retains the VAT treatment for the great majority of vouchers sold in this country, and I commend it to the House.
Amendment 17 and new schedule 1 relate to the categorisation of suppliers for the purposes of value added tax. New schedule 1 would implement the changes announced at the Budget, which have been refined in the light of consultation, to address anomalies and loopholes in the area of VAT liability. The VAT system contains a number of anomalies along the borderlines of VAT exemptions and VAT zero rates, and addressing some of those anomalies and loopholes is precisely what the Chancellor announced at the Budget.
The Government announced at the Budget that they were introducing a number of measures to address some of those VAT anomalies, reducing uncertainty, costs for business and for HMRC, and raising revenue. On Budget day, we proposed a number of measures and launched a consultation to engage stakeholders and to listen to their ideas. The measures that we announced proposed to clarify the treatment of catering to ensure that all hot takeaway food is taxed, and to clarify the meaning of “premises” in the context of whether food is consumed on or off a supplier’s premises.
We proposed also to tax sports nutrition drinks to ensure that all sports drinks receive the same tax treatment, and to remove self-storage from exemption in order to ensure that all suppliers of storage receive the same tax treatment and to counter avoidance.
Mr Gauke
I certainly will, although at this point I am just setting out what we set out at the Budget. I will turn to each individual measure in more detail in a moment and happily give way to my hon. Friend at that point.
We propose to remove the anomaly whereby approved alterations to certain listed buildings are zero-rated while alterations to other buildings and repairs to and maintenance on all buildings are standard-rated. We included transitional arrangements for alteration works to listed buildings which had been contracted before the Budget, and we wanted to put beyond doubt the fact that VAT applies to the rental of hairdressers’ chairs.
Finally, we proposed to ensure that holiday caravans are taxed consistently at the standard rate of VAT. The proposal, as set out in the consultation document, was that all the changes would take effect from 1 October via secondary legislation, supported by anti-forestalling provisions in this Bill. The consultation was opened on 21 March, and overall HMRC received some 1,500 responses. Owing to the volume of interest in the consultation, we decided to extend it, and since it has closed we have reflected fully on the points made during the process.
As the House will be aware, in two areas—hot food that is cooling down naturally and static holiday caravans—the Budget proposals created a high degree of business uncertainty, so the Government wanted to let people know our preferred course of action as soon as possible; we did that on 28 May. Last Thursday, we published a consultation response document and tabled the new schedule setting out our approach to all the measures on which we consulted. We stand by the rationale for removing anomalies, but have made several refinements, including those we announced on 28 May. They are intended to improve the policy and reflect the practical concerns raised in the consultation.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
HMRC produced a document on the impact of the caravan tax, but can the Minister provide enlightenment on the impact of the 5% VAT imposition? There are no figures now on how many jobs will be lost and by how much demand for static caravans will decrease, and I was hoping that the Treasury had worked that out.
Mr Gauke
Clearly there is a substantial difference between 20% VAT and 5% VAT. We set out our estimates in relation to the 20% rate, and some of the concerns that people took from what HMRC set out were, I think, somewhat greater than the reality warranted, because the impact set out and the assumption regarding the reduction in demand related solely to that element to which the change from zero-rated to standard-rated applied. On many caravans that are sold, the VAT is recovered—VAT already applies to an element of the price of a static caravan: that of the fixtures and fittings.
We do not think the impact of the 5% rate is likely to be substantial. In the usual course of business there are tax changes—national insurance contributions and rates are the subject of regular fluctuations—and in many cases the VAT change may well be absorbed. In addition, we have given industry much more time by deciding not to implement the change until April next year. Caravan manufacturers will have the opportunity to sell more caravans in advance of next year’s summer season—the information we have is that spring tends to be the busiest period. The overall impact on the industry is therefore unlikely to be significant.
Before discussing each of the anomalies and saying more about static caravans, I would like to give the House a little bit of history about the VAT system. As I am sure all hon. Members know, the VAT system was introduced in 1973 and amendments and adjustments were being made as early as 1974. The then Labour Government added confectionary, soft drinks, ice cream, potato crisps and certain other savoury snacks—
Mr Speaker
Order. My ears pricked up when the Minister suggested he might furnish the House with what he gently described as “a little bit” of information about VAT. In offering to the House—in a public-spirited fashion, I am sure—a potted history of the value added tax system, I am sure that he will have regard to the new clause that he is presenting.
Mr Gauke
I certainly will, Mr Speaker. I did say I would give a little history and, following your guidance, I will focus on the little.
I hope it helps the House if I explain that, in the almost 40 years in which we have had VAT, there have been changes from time to time. There were changes in the VAT on building alterations in 1982 and 1984, on hot takeaway food in 1984 and on newspaper and magazine advertising in 1985—I could go on, Mr Speaker, but let me move on.
Nigel Mills
My hon. Friend refers to the marketing of such things as sold hot. Will he confirm that a baker who markets something as freshly baked would not fall foul of this provision, given that presumably when something is freshly baked it is hot? I think that the intention is that, say, a freshly baked sausage roll that is cooling down would not be subject to VAT, but if that marketing term were used it could perhaps be caught by the provision.
Mr Gauke
The final details as to what exactly will or will not constitute marketing something as hot will be set out in the HMRC guidance. However, I take on board my hon. Friend’s perfectly reasonable point that something that is presented essentially as fresh, but cooling, is different from something that is clearly presented as hot at the point at which one purchases it.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I am tempted to ask my hon. Friend whether he knows how many different chocolate eyes a gingerbread man must have to go from being zero-rated to standard-rated. The answer is on HMRC’s website.
On packaging, new schedule 1 uses the wording:
“whether or not the packaging was primarily designed for that purpose”.
There is some ambiguity as to whether a simple paper bag might be caught by that definition. Can the Minister assure us that people will be able to get their pies and pasties in a paper bag from the bakery without their being standard-rated?
Mr Gauke
The purpose of that wording relates to packaging that is specifically designed for the retention of heat. For example, hon. Members will all have experience of a paper bag with a foil interior that is used for such purposes. I do not think that a simple paper bag would fall into that category. In most people’s experience, pasties and suchlike are generally left on shelves rather than contained within bags while in the shop. I hope that that provides some clarification.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
We have arrived at this change after 20-odd years in which, through various legal challenges, we have come to our current conclusions on this aspect of VAT. Can the Minister assure us that we are not facing another 20 years of litigation in order to get these finer details clarified?
Mr Gauke
One can never rule out the fact that some people will be litigious and try to take a creative view of any particular guidance. However, we believe that we have reached the right position after much consultation and discussion with the industry and with hon. Members, many of whom have been very engaged in the matter. I look around the House and see at least two Members who have been in my office to make representations on this point. We believe that we have reached a position that is sustainable and fair, and that is what we are putting to the House in the new schedule. The additional criteria will ensure that hot food will generally be taxed at the standard rate of VAT, but if food that would be zero-rated when cold is bought when it happens to be cooling down, but is not yet cold, it will still be zero-rated provided that it does not meet any of the criteria that I set out. These changes will add further tests to make the relief less open to abuse and provide a level playing field for all businesses supplying their customers with hot food.
Turning to the issue of holiday caravans, which we have touched on briefly, the VAT zero rate was originally intended to apply to the sale of caravans used only for residential purposes. To achieve that objective, the rules drawn up in the 1970s applied tax only to the sale of smaller caravans that could legally be towed on UK roads by a typical family car. However, over the years, an increasing number of large caravans have been used for holiday purposes. Those caravans inadvertently benefit from the VAT zero rate that was intended for residential caravans. That has led to widespread inconsistency in the VAT treatment of the sale of holiday caravans.
Under the current legislation, any caravan wider than 2.55 metres or longer than 7 metres is zero-rated as a residential caravan. The Government propose to replace the definition of a zero-rated caravan based on size with a new definition based on whether the caravan has been designed for residential use. To achieve that, we propose a new test that links the zero-rating with British Standard 3632, which indicates that the caravan has been designed and manufactured for continuous, all-year-round occupation and is therefore suitable for residential accommodation.
We consulted on whether the additional criteria should be added to ensure that the zero rate applies only to caravans intended for residential use. Given the reaction to the proposal, we decided that rather than having a single dividing line between a zero rate of VAT on residential caravans and a rate of 20% on static holiday caravans, static holiday caravans should be subject to VAT at the reduced rate of 5%. Static residential caravans—those that meet BS 3632, or early equivalents in the case of second-hand sales of older caravans—will remain zero-rated, as per the Budget proposal. We do not intend to restrict the zero rate further by adding additional criteria.
Diana Johnson
I wonder whether it is sensible to make decisions on tax policy based on manufacturing standards. Manufacturing standards will change and no doubt get better, so is that a sensible way of operating tax policy?
Mr Gauke
In this particular circumstance, the manufacturing standard provides a better definition or borderline than the size criteria that I set out. It was put to us in the consultation that it would be very easy for manufacturers to do a bit more here and there, and that a static caravan that was once not BS 3632-compliant suddenly would be. When we investigated that, we concluded that it was quite expensive and difficult to meet BS 3632. Genuine residential caravans meet that standard, but non-residential, holiday vans do not. It seems to be an effective borderline. Of course these matters will be kept under review, but we think that this is a sensible conclusion and one that the industry recognises. The evidence that the industry has put to us is that BS 3632 adequately distinguishes between residential caravans and static caravans.
It is worth pointing out that BS 3632 caravans tend to be more expensive and are built to a higher specification. For those reasons, they tend to be used more in the residential market than in the holiday market. It is worth coming back to the intention of the 1970s definition for zero-rated caravans.
We recognise that static holiday caravans fall in a grey area between residential property and temporary holiday accommodation, which have different tax regimes. We have therefore produced the fair compromise of a 5% VAT rate. The argument was sometimes made to us that static holiday caravans should be treated like a second home, on which VAT is not paid. However, council tax is paid on a second home, which is not the case with static holiday caravans. Imposing the council tax regime on static caravan homes would have placed a significant burden on their owners and holiday parks, so we believe that we have made a fair compromise. As I said earlier, to give the industry more time to adjust, the measure will be delayed until 6 April 2013. All the other measures that we are discussing today will proceed as planned on 1 October this year.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked about the impact that the current proposals will have on the industry. Will the Minister confirm that the Treasury has not yet calculated that impact?
Mr Gauke
We assessed what the impact would be if VAT was at 20%, and obviously 5% is a quarter of that, so one can draw correlations. Most industries supply VAT-inclusive durable goods at a profit, so it is reasonable to apply VAT in this case. The impact that we originally set out in the tax information and impact note at the time of the Budget will be significantly lessened by the change to the 5% rate, particularly bearing in mind that there is already a full 20% rate on a fair proportion of static caravans because of the durable goods contained within them.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
We can partly assess what the impact will be from what manufacturers themselves have said, which is that they do not expect the 5% rate to have an impact of any great severity on them. However, it is important to recognise that there needs to be stability, so an assurance that the Government will not raise the rate in future would be welcome, as would an undertaking that there will be an assessment of the rate after a year or two to see whether it has had any impact. Generally, the industry has welcomed it.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right to say that the industry has welcomed the change to our policy. As we would expect, it does not anticipate the 5% rate to have a significant impact on it. As far as the stability of the rate is concerned, the standard wording is to say that all decisions are for the Chancellor and all taxes are kept under review, but I do not anticipate that the Government will return to this issue in any great hurry. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased about that. Were we to do so, I have no doubt that he would make strong representations once again. I hope he will take some comfort from that.
Diana Johnson
The National Caravan Council has said that the caravan industry is fragile after the problems that it experienced in 2008. Based on the figures in the KPMG report, there would have been 6,000 job losses if the imposition of the 20% rate had gone ahead. Am I right to assume that with the 5% rate, the Treasury is working on the assumption that the impact will be a quarter of that number, which means 1,500 job losses?
Mr Gauke
Perhaps it will help the hon. Lady if I run through the situation. We have to raise a certain number of taxes, and VAT probably does less harm to the economy than almost any other tax that one could mention, whether it be employers’ national insurance contributions, which reduce the number of jobs, or corporation tax, which reduces investment. There is an issue with any tax.
On this particular policy, however, we are talking about a 5% rate on 80% of the price of a caravan, the other 20% being standard rated already, and on 85% of sales, the other 15% being standard rated already—or rather the purchaser being able to recover input taxes on it. There is then an elasticity of demand, and the 5% rate might result in a 5% reduction in demand, but of course that involves various assumptions and some uncertainty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, however, much of the industry does not think it will have a significant impact.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I wish to reinforce that point. The site operators, of which, as the Exchequer Secretary knows, there are many in south and west Wales, would also come to the same view—although not ideal, they thoroughly understand the situation and recognise it as one they can manage for the foreseeable future. They much welcome the news that it will not be revisited in the foreseeable future.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Tax is but one of the various factors that will have an impact on demand, and VAT is but one tax. I shall not dwell on it, Mr Speaker, but I should mention that the Government are putting in place a much more competitive corporation tax regime, which will be to the advantage of caravan manufacturers and many others.
I shall touch briefly on alterations to listed buildings. The reaction to our announced changes to VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings demonstrated the need for the measure on the grounds of simplification alone. The consultation and media coverage have highlighted the huge uncertainty over whether an item of building work is an alteration or a repair. The purpose of the measure is to avoid the need for such discussions by applying the same VAT liability to all alterations, repairs and maintenance. Repairs and maintenance to all buildings, including listed buildings, have always been liable to VAT, and alterations to non-listed buildings have been since 1984. The Budget announcement changes none of that, although a zero rate currently applies to alterations to protected buildings—mostly listed dwellings but also scheduled monuments and listed buildings used for charitable and other residential purposes.
For listed buildings, the borderline between alteration and repair or maintenance is a major source of confusion. The Budget announcement has no impact on the repair and maintenance of listed buildings, which have always been liable to VAT, so there will be no change to the VAT treatment of repairs to thatched roofs or steeples, contrary to what has been reported in the press. The Budget decision also reflects our view that grants can provide a more flexible mechanism than VAT for providing specific financial support for the heritage sector. We have increased the funding for the listed places of worship scheme and broadened its scope so that churches and other listed places of worship can claim grants to offset the impact of VAT on their alterations, repairs and maintenance.
The Budget proposal for alterations to listed buildings includes transitional arrangements, and, following the consultation, we have decided to make these more generous. As with the Budget proposal, the transitional arrangements will cover cases where written contracts had been entered into before Budget day 2012 or, in the case of the first grant of buildings that have been substantially reconstructed, where 10% of the work had been completed before Budget day. We have now agreed that they should also apply where listed building consent had been applied for before the Budget, and the transitional arrangements will be extended so that, where a project qualifies, zero rating can apply until 30 September 2015. These extensions will mean that the zero rate will continue to apply for most alteration projects where work was close to starting at the time of the Budget announcement.
Let me turn to the Budget proposal for self-storage.
Catherine McKinnell
I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow, but I want to take him back to listed buildings. He spoke about grants being available to churches for alterations and repairs. However, my understanding is that there is concern that what is proposed is more of a rebate or reclaim of tax spent, rather than a grant that would be available before the alterations and repairs are undertaken. Will he clarify what the position will be?
Mr Gauke
The first point to make is that the increased funding for the listed places of worship scheme was entered into after consultation with the Church of England, which led for other religious groups in this matter, and I understand that they are satisfied with the arrangements that have been reached. The listed places of worship scheme, which the previous Government set up, has been extended to allow recovery costs relating to VAT for both repairs and alterations. It offers church groups, for example, an opportunity to recover the costs they would otherwise incur, but is now much more generously funded, and a much greater proportion of VAT costs will be able to be reclaimed. Indeed, VAT costs should be able to be reclaimed in full for the time being, such is the scale of the support we have made available for the listed places of worship scheme.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that we always made it clear that we would increase the listed places of worship scheme, because of the increased costs that were going to be placed on churches, but after further discussions, with the Church of England in particular, we realised that the amount we had initially said would be adequate was not adequate, and we increased it. However, to deal with the hon. Lady’s specific question, what is proposed is indeed a reclaim arrangement. That is how it will work, and that is how it worked in the last Parliament as well.
Catherine McKinnell
Will the Minister clarify, therefore, whether he has received any expressions of concern about churches, which often rely on fundraising to undertake works, having to raise additional money, which they will then have to reclaim from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or about the additional burden that this will place on what are already quite stretched resources?
Mr Gauke
I understand the point the hon. Lady raises. The Church is satisfied with the arrangements. She is suggesting that in order to fund a project, a church group would need to fund the cost, plus 20%. That is not how it should work, because the scheme will be sufficiently flexible to ensure that a church group will have the funding in time, so that it does not have to raise an additional 20% or so. I have had considerable conversations with Church representatives on this issue, and I am not getting representations that they are concerned about that point.
Catherine McKinnell
I have just one last question about this issue. Has HMRC undertaken any assessment of the additional bureaucracy and administrative costs that will result from all churches having to engage in the process?
Mr Gauke
The advantage of the way in which we have introduced this measure—through the listed places of worship scheme—is that there is already a mechanism in place for providing grants for repairs. That is something we inherited, and although I cannot say this about everything we inherited, it is quite helpful. We anticipate that there will be a monthly repayment process through the listed places of worship scheme. With regard to the hon. Lady’s concern about cash flow, the main point to make is that the Church is content with the arrangements.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his clarification on that matter. I understand that if churches want to reclaim VAT in such circumstances, such a claim will have to apply to work on the footprint of the original construction. When work is done not only to the old part of the church but also to the new, will it be possible to differentiate a claim so that the work done on the old part and that carried out on the new extension can be treated differently?
Mr Gauke
The arrangements that will be in place following the legislation will mean that repairs and alterations will be chargeable for VAT. However, the listed places of worship scheme will apply to both types of work. It has been the case for some time that repairs involved the payment of VAT. The listed places of worship scheme will enable people to reclaim the VAT costs relating to those repairs. An extension—which is an alteration, rather than a repair—will now have VAT charged to it, but it will be possible to reclaim it through that same scheme. The scheme is now more generously funded than it was before the Budget, which means that a higher proportion of the costs that the churches would have incurred will now be able to be reclaimed. We have taken steps that the churches have widely welcomed.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sorry to have missed the beginning of the Minister’s remarks on this subject. I was actually checking up on certain aspects of a similar issue in my constituency. He said that the Church of England was content with the arrangements, but I hope that he will accept that it is not just the Church of England that is involved. I have a lot of churches, places of worship and listed buildings in my constituency, and I have been contacted by a church that was in the advanced stages of preparing to carry out work that could be seriously affected by the proposals. Will the Minister guarantee that, if the funding for the scheme does not meet the requirements, he will look again at the level of funding provided? Will he also monitor the scheme closely to ensure that no extra bureaucracy is introduced that could delay projects that would otherwise go ahead?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that not just the Church of England is involved. I said earlier, however, that the Church of England had led on behalf of all the churches on this matter. On his second point, we have made the transitional rules more generous for churches that were close to commencing work at the time of the Budget. I obviously cannot comment on the specific case in his constituency without knowing all the details, but I think that he will find that many cases in which plans had reached an advanced stage will benefit from the transitional rules. He mentioned the funding for the scheme. We believe that this is a generous settlement, but we will of course keep such matters under review. He also mentioned bureaucracy. The scheme is organised by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but the Treasury will also take a close interest in it. The two Departments have worked together very effectively on this matter, and we are keen to ensure that the scheme works in an adequate way. I would underline the point that the representations that we have received from the churches suggest that they are happy with the arrangements.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Minister says that the two Departments are now working closely together on the scheme. Was there a similarly close working relationship when the Treasury was thinking up the proposal? Did the DCMS know about the proposal and approve it—before it was modified, of course?
Mr Gauke
The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to draw me into dangerous, and perhaps more interesting, territory. All I would say to him is that all decisions are for the Chancellor, although of course the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was involved at an appropriate level.
The Budget proposal for self-storage changed the liability of supplies of facilities for self-storage from exempt to taxable. Following consultation, we planned to avoid creating a competitive advantage for those larger operators with more expensive facilities. These businesses can partially mitigate the impact of the change by using the capital goods scheme to claim back some of the VAT they had previously paid on the purchase of these facilities, whereas smaller businesses with less expensive facilities cannot. We will therefore make a separate provision by statutory instrument to amend the capital goods scheme so that self-storage providers affected by the measure whose individual capital items are worth less than a £250,000 threshold for the scheme can opt into it and have the same input tax recovery benefits as larger providers with capital items that would already qualify for the scheme.
We also propose to ensure that the storage of live animals will remain exempt, as the original proposal might inadvertently have applied VAT to stabling, and we propose to introduce an anti-avoidance provision so that if the storage is used by a third party with the permission of the person who contracts for the storage, it is taxed in the same way as if it were self-storage. This will prevent someone from avoiding taxation by getting a third party to contract with the supplier. We have revised the exclusion for storage facilities provided to persons connected with the supplier so that it is more directly targeted on facilities that are subject to the capital goods scheme. This fine-tuning reflects the benefit of consulting and listening to what respondents say, but it does not undermine the rationale for the measure.
For hairdressers’ chairs, the schedule provides a clearer description of the services typically provided under a chair rental agreement and excludes services that could legitimately be provided with a simple supply of a right over land. The schedule also reflects a change to make it clear that the supply of a whole building to a hairdresser will not become taxable unless it is supplied along with other goods or services.
Finally, regarding the measure to apply VAT to all sports drinks and to clarify the definition of premises for the purposes of determining whether food is consumed on or off the suppliers’ premises, we are proceeding as planned in the Budget.
Nigel Mills
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me again. On the sports drink issue, I am sure he will remember the old milk advert suggesting that if children did not drink their milk, they would end up playing for Accrington Stanley rather than Liverpool. The gap between those two teams might be a bit less nowadays, but the idea was that milk improves physical performance. Will my hon. Friend confirm that an ordinary pint of milk will not be caught within these provisions?
Mr Gauke
I confirm that I remember the adverts and that milk will not be standard rated for these purposes. I refer my hon. Friend to the remarks the Chancellor made in respect, I think, of the 2010 Budget—that everyday essentials will not become standard rated. However great the advance of Accrington Stanley and the decline of Liverpool, that will remain the case.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister provide a bit more clarity, as I believe the industry has been extremely concerned about the definition of a sports drink as opposed to sports nutrition products? I understand that some drinks would not be caught within the definition, but that some products legitimately used by athletes—by weight-lifting participants, for example—would be. Given the concern about it, further clarification from the Minister would help.
Mr Gauke
The broad point is that sports drinks—such as Lucozade and others—are standard rated and have been for some time, and that sports nutrition drinks marketed as such will now become standard rated. We believe that that is fair. These products can be distinguished from a pint of milk or a milk drink not designed or marketed for sports nutrition purposes. Nothing in the consultation responses calls us to query the rationale for the measures or to amend the draft legislation other than through a minor amendment to tidy up the wording.
Catherine McKinnell
Can the Minister reassure me that his proposal will not lead to the same riddles and illogicalities that arose from the original pasty tax proposal, meaning that the same product marketed or packaged in a different way could end up attracting a different rate of VAT? Will he also tell us what consultations he has had with the industry?
Mr Gauke
We have completed a period of consultation and received a number of representations. In recent days, I have met representatives of GlaxoSmithKline and listened to their concerns. As for the hon. Lady’s first question, when products are aimed at different markets but clearly targeted at particular consumer groups, I think it reasonable to view them in the light of some of the competing products that are aimed at exactly the same market. Our research suggests that most sports drinks are clearly targeted at particular markets, and their VAT treatment will follow from that.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister has not really explained why the Government should want to target a sports industry or sports-related products for tax purposes when much more unhealthy products might remain tax-free. Will he clarify that?
Mr Gauke
If the Opposition are setting out the principle that whether or not VAT applies should depend on the healthiness or otherwise of the products involved—which brings us back to hot food—we may have to engage in a slightly different debate, and I am not sure that either of us wants to go in that direction.
Catherine McKinnell
I am happy to clarify the fact that I am not setting out any particular policy position on whether sports goods or health products should be targeted for tax. However, the Minister appears to be saying that although the milk that is marketed for general consumption is VAT-free, if it is marketed for sports-related consumption it will be subject to VAT. Will he explain that policy?
Mr Gauke
VAT is charged on all beverages. Typical sports drinks which are consumed primarily to rehydrate or quench thirst are already taxed accordingly at the standard rate, but some sports drinks companies have won court rulings that their products are not beverages because of their nutritional content and because they are not designed to quench thirst. The changes that we are introducing will ensure that all sports drinks are subject to the same VAT treatment whether they are consumed for rehydration or for nutritional purposes, because they are targeted at much the same group, and we think it only right to apply the same approach to consumers. The argument for the zero-rating of food is that it should apply to everyday essentials, but it is difficult to apply that argument to sports and nutritional drinks.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I am desperately trying to understand what the Minister is saying will happen to sports and nutrition products. Is he saying that all drinks will now be subject to 20% VAT? What about other nutritional products that are not sold in liquid form?
Mr Gauke
Let me try to be helpful to the hon. Lady—not for the first time during our deliberations, I hope. We propose that drinks aimed at the sports nutrition market will be standard rated. We are not applying the same approach to meal-replacement drinks. There is a clear distinction between them, as one is more closely aligned to food than to sports drinks.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I do not have the full details of the intricacies of that particular debate, but I know that what I am proposing is our policy and we support it. We are going to vote today for this measure to reduce VAT to 17.5%.
Catherine McKinnell
That is an interesting question, coming from a Minister who has just justified a temporary delay of the rise in fuel tax that is apparently to be paid for by underspends that are not quantified by the Government, who are in a much better position to provide detailed costings to the House but cannot for their own tax reductions. We have said all along that the Government’s current policies are costing the taxpayer more. Borrowing is increasing, not reducing—the Government are borrowing £150 billion more over the spending period—and the benefits bill is sending the economy backwards, not forwards.
Catherine McKinnell
I have just answered it. I would be grateful if the Minister could similarly provide detailed costings as to where the Government’s tax reduction for the fuel relief is going to come from. If he were able to do that, we could certainly provide detailed costings of our tax proposal. The point is that the reduction to 17.5% will put money back into people’s pockets, get the economy moving and get growth back into the economy. That will help to bring down borrowing, which is increasing at the moment.
Catherine McKinnell
As I said, it is the Government’s job to work out the cost of any tax changes or spending commitments, and they have not even been able to provide answers as regards their own fuel duty reduction.
Mr Gauke
As the hon. Lady says that it is the Government’s job, let me tell her—I do not want to keep her in suspense —that her policy of reducing VAT to 17.5% would cost £12 billion to £13 billion a year. Does she dispute that number, and can she explain how she is going to pay for it?
Catherine McKinnell
If our policy turns the trajectory of the economy around from one of recession to one of growth, then clearly it will pay for itself and bring down the benefits bill, which is currently going up.
Julie Hilling
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Clearly, I do not believe that £30 million is anywhere near the sum needed to compensate. Of course, the Government have also said that those people will get lottery and Government grants, but hang on a minute: is that not just taking with one hand and paying back with another? The change has been a huge blow to many communities that have been working for years and years to raise enough money to rescue old buildings and convert them for use by the whole community, only to now have to find another 20%.
The Government have tried to say that we should not worry too much about the heritage tax as it is really about charging millionaires who live in listed buildings and who get their indoor swimming pool tax-free, but there is no evidence for that. They conclude on the basis of a review of 105 applications that the majority of the work covered by the relief is
“not necessary for heritage purposes”,
but as nearly 30,000 listed building applications are made a year, that does not seem to me to be good evidence. From a sample of 12,049 applications, only 34 were for swimming pools. Perhaps we could deal with the problem in a slightly different way rather than imposing the heritage tax on all buildings. Indeed, 50% of those who live in listed buildings are in socio-economic groups C1, C2, D and E—supervisory, clerical, junior management, administrative, skilled workers, semi-skilled workers and unskilled workers. People in those groups are not usually millionaires.
That implementation of VAT will not raise a great deal of money in the scheme of things, but will be another blow to the construction industry and run the risk of more of our heritage buildings going to rack and ruin. Of course, once VAT is put on something it can never be returned to zero.
Skip taxes seem to have been introduced and then withdrawn. I think they probably have been withdrawn—who would know? The Government seem to be introducing a self-storage tax, however. Self-storage is often used by people in transition, such as those who are selling or buying houses or those whose homes are undergoing renovation. It is also used by people who have downgraded or moved to a different community and therefore have to live in much smaller accommodation. It is usually in a prime location so that customers can come and go as they choose, changing their winter wardrobe for their summer wardrobe or taking goods in or out of storage. Removals and storage providers have storage facilities as an ancillary part of the business and are therefore frequently in more remote places, as the location of the property does not need to attract customers. One reason for putting VAT on self-storage was to level the playing field for removal companies, even though they have different purposes. The effect will be that ordinary people will be hit again. Businesses that use self-storage to store documents and so on will be able to reclaim the VAT, but the ordinary person will not.
I think we still have a hairdressers tax. That will mean that self-employed hairdressers who rent a chair in a small salon will have no choice other than to register for VAT and decide whether to charge their customers VAT at 20% or to absorb the cost themselves. Of course, that will particularly hit females aged between 16 and 46—the very people whom the Government say they want to encourage to be entrepreneurs, start up their own businesses and pay into society.
The situation with sports nutrition is another unholy mess. If I have got this right—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I have not—sports drinks will become VAT-able, but sports nutrition products will not. If the Minister wants to intervene, I am happy for him to do so.
Julie Hilling
Does that mean that it will be exempt if a liquid product is made into a solid and people are just advised to drink water with it? What about weight-management products? More than 20% of the products in the sports nutrition category are for weight management. If they are slimming products, they are zero-rated, but they could also be considered to be sports nutrition products. We could have a bizarre situation in which men and women who exercise hard, follow a balanced diet and use sports nutrition products to help them get into shape would pay VAT, whereas those who skip meals, sit on the sofa and take magic slimming products would not.
It seems odd that we are making that tax change in Olympic year, when we are encouraging people to get fit, but it is typical of this Budget. It is a shambles that will create more anomalies than it will resolve. With all the U-turns—even though we welcome some of them—it is still totally confusing. Even after listening to the Minister this afternoon and spending many weeks on the Bill Committee, I am still not clear what the Budget says.
Secondly, the Budget rewards millionaires and punishes ordinary people. It punishes the squeezed middle and the battered base, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) frequently mentions. The VAT changes all hurt people who lead ordinary lives. They all hit hard-pressed businesses and do absolutely nothing for jobs and growth. The millionaires still get their tax cut, but they are not paying the tax that is due. If the rest of us decided not to pay our taxes, could we have a tax cut too? Or does that apply only to the very rich, who can also avoid their tax by paying accountants a great deal of money?
Charlie Elphicke
I want to speak briefly about new schedule 1. In my constituency is A and S Self Storage, run by Diana and George Pelly, which is a small family-run storage business. My concern is about how the new measure will work and I hope that Ministers will take on board some of my points.
The mischief that the new schedule seeks to attack is the business whereby big companies exercise the option to tax on a piece of land, build a storage facility and later disapply the option to tax, giving themselves a tax advantage. The Treasury have applied VAT on all self-storage and my concern is that some 250,000 people in the UK use self-storage and will find from September onwards that their bills will suddenly go up by 20%. I hope that the Government will consider this a little further and think whether there is a better way to deal with the real mischief, which is the abuse of the option to tax.
My other concern is that the revenue raised will disproportionately benefit larger businesses that can claim back costs under the capital goods scheme, rather than the smaller businesses, which cannot. Effectively, it will disproportionately benefit the four big players in the self-storage industry at the expense of smaller businesses such as A and S Self Storage. I hope that Ministers will consider that point.
The Exchequer impact is also in question. The Exchequer says that the measure will raise money, but the Self Storage Association’s brief states:
“In its calculations the Government has not taken into account the significant reclaim of VAT under the CGS rules, which Deloitte have calculated to be £43m based on the detailed results of their survey…According to Deloitte many operators, particularly the largest ones, could accelerate CGS recovery under existing VAT law.”
I want to plead for caution on the part of Ministers and ask them to consider carefully the question of tackling the underlying abuse, which is the business of disapplying the option to tax. I appreciate that many Members will find that exceptionally dull, as it involves highly technical VAT law, but my principal concern is that it is a hard thing to raise VAT across the board for 250,000 people when one really wants to target the few people who are playing the system to get more tax money for their businesses at the expense of everyone else and of the UK Treasury.
Mr Gauke
It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for their remarks. In many cases it has been a pleasure to work closely with them on some of the Budget measures that we have discussed. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for his kind remarks. I am grateful for the courteous and constructive way in which he engaged with us, and I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth and, although he is not here, to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who were very involved in these matters. [Hon. Members: “He is here.”] I am delighted to see that he has joined us. Even if I did not know he was here, I would have said something nice about him. He can assess my sincerity on that basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover made a point about the capital goods scheme. I think he was otherwise engaged earlier today, but I confirm to the House that we are making a separate provision by statutory instrument to amend the capital goods scheme so that self-storage providers affected by the measure and whose individual capital items are worth less than the £250,000 threshold for the scheme can opt in to the scheme and have the same input tax recovery benefits as larger providers with capital items that would already qualify for it. My hon. Friend can note that within two minutes of his making a request, the Government have acceded to it. I hope he is pleased with that.
I want to pick up on some of the points made and say a word or two about some of the new clauses. I think the point that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is addressing in new clause 3 is the funding of sixth-form colleges, as opposed to whether they are charged for VAT. Sixth-form and further education colleges are under the control of local authorities and have always been funded differently from schools or academy schools. I think he has in mind a refund scheme along the lines of that for academies.
Sixth-form colleges have never been able to receive VAT refunds against expenditure on their non-business activities, but the basic funding principle for sixth-form colleges is that their VAT costs are taken into account within their up-front funding allocation. Thus funding for sixth-form colleges includes cover for various costs, including VAT, on top of the direct costs of teaching. The right hon. Gentleman has put his argument on the record. Essentially, he argues for additional funding for sixth-form colleges. That must be assessed in light of the current fiscal situation.
New clause 10, which requires an assessment of the impact of the VAT borderline changes, is virtually identical to new clause 3, which was debated and defeated in the Committee of the whole House on 18 April, and to amendment 200, which was withdrawn in the Public Bill Committee on 21 June. Given that the amendment was debated and defeated the first time and withdrawn the second time, I suggest that the Opposition withdraw new clause 10 on this occasion.
On new clause 12, the Opposition have tabled an amendment to return the rate of VAT to 17.5% until
“such time as the Government presents to Parliament a report stating that the UK economy has returned to strong growth.”
This would be very costly. I know that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) was keen not to provide a cost to the House, but the proposal would cost £12 billion to £13 billion. That would substantially erode our fiscal credibility, and if credibility is lost and interest rates rise, the impact on the fiscal position would be severe. We would expect this to have a negative effect on the UK economy. If the Opposition believe that the answer to our current problems is more borrowing, they should stand up and say so. If the solution that the economy needs is a bigger gap between what we raise in tax and what we spend, let me give the hon. Lady the opportunity to say that now.
Catherine McKinnell
Is the Minister aware that the overall borrowing that the Government are engaged in is £9 billion higher now than was planned in October 2010, so the Government’s own economic strategy is resulting in higher, not lower, borrowing?
Mr Gauke
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady welcomes that. Does she support more borrowing or not? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has made its position clear on what would happen if we pursued the policies that the Opposition advocate or have advocated—that moves around a bit. It stretches the Opposition’s credibility if they think that their approach means that borrowing now would be lower. I think the sincere position of the Opposition is that we should have a bigger fiscal stimulus—we should be borrowing more now in order to pump money into the economy. Is that their position?
Catherine McKinnell
The Opposition’s point is that the Government’s own plans are resulting in more borrowing. The alternative is to give a 2.5% VAT cut to households to stimulate demand in the economy and get the economy out of the double-dip recession that it is in and back into growth, which will ultimately bring borrowing down.
Mr Gauke
So when borrowing is higher than we plan it to be, it is a disaster, but when borrowing is higher because the Opposition would bring that about through a deliberate policy, that would be a fiscal stimulus. I am not entirely clear where they are trying to go with this. We know why the public finances are more difficult than we had anticipated. It is to do with the eurozone, the increase in commodity prices and the fact that the economy took a bigger hit than anyone had previously realised, but a discretionary fiscal loosening of £12 billion or £13 billion, which is what the Opposition are about to vote on, would be taking a huge risk with our credibility.
It is worth making the point that if we do that, we lose our fiscal credibility and we are likely to see long-term interest rates rise. That will result in our paying out more in debt interest. A one-point rise in interest rates would mean £7.5 billion in additional debt interest payments by 2016-17, and an increase for the average mortgage borrower of £1,000 per year. Is that what the Opposition want? Do they think that would help?
Sheila Gilmore
The Minister should accept that he has given a partial quotation from his own Office for Budget Responsibility. He is fond of saying that the recession has been deeper than previously thought. Yes, the OBR did say that, but it also said at exactly the same time that the climb out of that recession had been faster than had previously been thought. That was a result of the economic stimulus measures that the previous Government put in place.
Mr Gauke
The OBR was very clear about the reasons why the economy did not grow as quickly as it had predicted. That was not because of the measures that we had taken to clamp down on borrowing. It was because of the factors that it set out. Now, at a time when we see other countries without fiscal credibility facing enormous difficulties, the Opposition want a discretional fiscal loosening of £12 billion or £13 billion a year. That is not responsible opposition. That is not a responsible policy and it is not a policy that this Government will pursue. I urge the Opposition not to press new clause 10.
I note that the Opposition are also opposing the VAT measures in total. That would be an additional cost of £210 million. These are measures that will remove anomalies. We have listened to the concerns raised by hon. Members and others to improve what we initially set out.
Catherine McKinnell
Can the Minister clarify how much the U-turns that the Government are legislating for today will cost and whether the £210 million has been factored into them?
Mr Gauke
After the changes we have announced, the Budget remains fiscally neutral. The reality is that the £70 million we are talking about has to be compared with the policy of cutting VAT, which would cost between £12 billion and £13 billion, and the £210 million for refusing to go ahead with the VAT changes we have announced. I am afraid that that simply underlines the fact that, once again, the Labour party has no fiscal credibility, will not face up to the challenges in the public finances and remains unfit for office.
Catherine McKinnell
Then came the shocking revelations at Barclays—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]—of traders fiddling the markets, cheating with mortgage and lending rates.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
Will the hon. Lady not have the courtesy to answer my hon. Friend’s question?
Catherine McKinnell
I will answer the question, but it was rather an insult to the people who have suffered from the situation at RBS, which was caused by administrative failures and poor management. The question put by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) does not address the severity of the matters that I am laying before the House.
Then came the shocking revelations at Barclays: of traders fiddling the markets, cheating with mortgage and lending rates—
Mark Lazarowicz
I want to say a few words in support of a bank bonus tax. I emphasise that I am supporting that not to bash the bankers, but to end the unacceptable face of banking in the form of an excessive bonus culture that is still far too widespread.
As I said earlier, the vast majority of people who work in financial services certainly do not get vast bonuses; many thousands of people in my constituency work hard behind bank counters or in bank offices serving customers, and they are often on modest incomes. Many have paid with changes in working conditions, while others have paid with their jobs, when redundancies flowed from the financial crisis caused by the irresponsibility of senior executives. We are not targeting those people; we want to do something about the small minority who are still getting excessive rewards.
A study published at the end of June showed that average pay for chief executives at 15 leading banks in the US and Europe increased by 12% over the last financial year. That may be less than the 36% increase in the previous year, but whatever the increase—it is about 50% when we add both increases—it is wildly out of line with falls in profits and share prices that have frequently characterised the sector. That is not performance-related pay in any sense that most people would understand and it is certainly not a performance that would justify what is effectively a further tax cut on top of a tax cut for the highest paid.
A tax targeted on bank bonuses is necessary because the existing attempts to curb the bonus culture have so obviously failed. That is the key point. The issue is not about saying that people should not be very well paid at the top of banks and financial institutions, but we want to get away from a position in which sums wildly in excess of anything that could be said to be deserved are paid as a matter of course. None of the steps taken so far has changed that culture, even in an era of financial crisis among the banks and beyond.
The second reason why we want a bank bonus tax is that it would raise money for some valuable purposes. The issue of jobs for young people affects all our constituencies. My constituency normally comes in the middle range of unemployment across the UK, and we have seen a substantial increase in youth unemployment. I certainly want that issue to be tackled in my constituency.
We are also saying that the bank bonus tax would be used to provide affordable housing. That, of course, would bring two benefits. First, it would bring more housing into the sector. Constituencies such as mine have to some extent, although on a lesser scale, experienced the same phenomenon as happened in London, where high rates of pay in certain sectors such as financial services have pushed up house prices and made it harder for people on lower incomes to get affordable housing, so this proposal would be important for those people as well. Of course, building affordable housing and new homes also gives a boost to the economy through providing new jobs in the construction sector and helps people who have been out of work because of the collapse of that sector in many parts of the country.
Our proposal of a bank bonus tax would not only tackle the excessive bonus culture but provide jobs for our young people and affordable homes, giving a boost to the construction sector. I therefore hope that the House will support it.
Mr Hoban
We have heard a series of slightly strange speeches by Labour Members. We have become accustomed to their belief that they left us a golden economic legacy, but the reality is that when they left office unemployment was higher than when they came into office. They seem to believe that the problems of youth unemployment started under this Government. At least the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) has the good sense to recognise that it is a long-standing and deep-seated issue and that its growth started under the previous Government.
Labour Members seem to forget that when they left office the deficit was out of control. We have tackled that and reduced the structural deficit by a quarter.
Bill Esterson
Youth unemployment is higher than when Labour left office, unemployment generally is higher than when Labour left office, and the economy was growing when Labour left office whereas now we are back in recession. Will the Minister confirm all three of those facts?
Mr Hoban
The challenge that we face is dealing with the economic legacy left by Labour, with the huge boom in financial services and the huge bust that followed.
We have heard Labour Members’ story that they presided over a golden age in the financial services sector. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) could not bring herself to admit that the scandal over LIBOR fixing took place between 2005 and 2008 or that the interest rate mis-selling that affected so many small businesses took place in the same period leading up to the financial crisis.
Labour Members deplore the bonus culture, but let us not forget that when they were in government, bonuses were paid out in the year that they were earned and paid out in cash. That was the hallmark of the age of irresponsibility that characterised their time in office. This Government are taking action to tackle the bonus culture. This Government have introduced rules to ensure that bonuses are not paid out in the year they are earned but spread over a three-year period, that they are not paid out in cash but in shares, and, crucially, that they can be clawed back where there have been problems in the business or where there has been wrongdoing. This Government have tackled the bonus culture in the UK whereas the previous Government let it run riot, and we have seen the financial consequences of their so doing.
Mark Lazarowicz
The bank bonus tax was first introduced by the previous Government. In fact, I think that our Government should have done much more about the bonus culture in the banks in the past and was wrong not to do so. However, will the Minister at least accept that at no stage did his Government suggest any action whatsoever to tackle the bonus culture? He should not suggest that the responsibility lies only with Labour but accept his share of the responsibility as well.
Mr Hoban
We have taken action to tackle the bonus culture by ensuring that the interests of shareholders and management are aligned and that where there is wrongdoing bonuses can be clawed back. That is a significant change that has happened since this Government came to office. In the same way that we are remedying the regulatory failures left behind by the previous Government, particularly by the shadow Chancellor, the inquiry set up into the fixing of LIBOR will ensure that in future LIBOR is regulated to fill the hole in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and ensure that there are criminal penalties for manipulating LIBOR—again, filling the hole left by the shadow Chancellor when he designed the regulatory system.
Mark Durkan
The Minister refers to what the Government have done since coming to office. What did the then Opposition suggest in the previous two Parliaments by way of concrete proposals on regulation or bonus culture or amendments to any of the flawed measures that the previous Government introduced?
Mr Hoban
When the previous Government brought forward the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, we voted against the decision to transfer the supervision of the banks from the Bank of England to the FSA. We are putting right that failure by the previous Government. We criticised the financial services reforms brought forward by the previous Government in the aftermath of the financial crisis. We said that they were tinkering around the edges and did not address the fundamental problems at the heart of regulation. The work that we did in opposition laid the foundations for a much tougher, more intrusive and more interventionist regulatory regime to tackle the problems left by the previous Government.
Mr Campbell
When the Minister talks about the economic mess, does he mean the £600 billion that the Labour Government had to give to the banks to bail them out and keep them afloat?
Mr Hoban
The UK economy has suffered hugely as a consequence of the financial crisis. It has lost £140 billion in growth. We have to tackle the causes of that failure, as well as tackling the deficit that the previous Government left behind. That is what we are doing through the Financial Services Bill, which is passing through Parliament at the moment.
John Hemming
In December 2008, the then Chancellor said:
“The measures that I announced in October have stabilised the banking system, and inter-bank lending rates have fallen. The three-month LIBOR rate halved to just over 3 per cent. this week.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 1213.]
Does the Minister think that that was a fantasy, like much of what the Opposition propose?
Mr Hoban
The last Prime Minister had a problem recognising his responsibility for the problems that befell the economy.
One way in which we have sought to get the balance right in the taxation of businesses is by introducing the bank levy. We took that decision in opposition. We thought that it was right to ensure that banks paid their fair share towards dealing with the risks that they pose to the economy. The measure was opposed by the previous Government. They did not want to introduce a bank levy on a unilateral basis. We had the courage to make that decision and to ensure that banks pay their fair share.
The bank levy is a tax on the balance sheets of banking groups and building societies. It complements the wider regulatory reforms that are aimed at improving financial stability, such as the higher capital and liquidity standards. It thereby ensures that the banking sector makes a fair and substantial contribution that reflects the risks that it poses to the financial system and the wider economy. The levy is also intended to encourage banks to move away from risky funding models.
From the outset, the Government have been clear that we intend the levy to raise at least £2.5 billion each year. The Opposition should get their facts right. They have trotted out the gross figure that was raised by the bank payroll tax. They must bear in mind that the tax also reduced pay-as-you-earn and national insurance receipts. That is why the actual yield of the bank payroll tax was only £2.3 billion. Our levy will therefore raise more, year after year, than was raised by their one-off bank payroll tax.
The target yield for the levy was set out in the Government’s first Budget. We also announced our intention to make significant cuts to the main rate of corporation tax. Let me deal with another red herring from the Opposition. We were clear at that time, as we are now, that the bank levy yield will far outweigh the benefits that banks will receive from the corporation tax changes. Other sectors, including manufacturing, will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax, but banks will not benefit because of the bank levy. In the 2011 and 2012 Budgets, the Chancellor has gone further and announced two more cuts in the main rate of corporation tax. It now stands at 24%. The increase in the bank levy announced in the Budget offsets the benefit of those additional cuts to maintain the incentives on banks to move towards less risky funding.
New clause 13, tabled by the shadow Chancellor, is, in the words of Yogi Berra, the great American baseball coach,
“déjà vu all over again”.
This is at least the fifth time in this Parliament and the second time in the passage of the Finance Bill that we have debated the bank payroll tax. We have heard no new arguments from the Opposition and nothing to persuade us to vote for it.
Yet again, we have to point out to the Labour party that such a tax would be counter-productive and unnecessary. The bank payroll tax was introduced as a one-off interim measure in the last Parliament ahead of regulatory reforms and changes to remuneration practice and corporate governance. The previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—somebody the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North should listen to and learn from—said that it could not be repeated. He pointed out that it was a temporary measure until bank remuneration practices were changed, and we have changed those practices.
The new clause calls for the proceeds of the tax to be used to help employment, but I should take some time to remind the House of the measures that we are already taking to do that. We have introduced the youth contract and are investing £1 billion over the next three years in supporting half a million young people into employment and educational opportunities. We will provide 160,000 wage incentives worth up to £2,275 each to employers who recruit an 18 to 24-year-old through the Work programme. There will be an extra quarter of a million voluntary work experience or sector work academy places over the next three years and a further 20,000 incentive payments to encourage employers to take on young apprentices, taking the total to 40,000.
We are also providing additional support through Jobcentre Plus and the opportunity for people to be referred for a careers interview with the national careers service. We are already providing more apprenticeship places than any previous Government, with a record 457,000 apprenticeships delivered in 2010-11 and a commitment to delivering 1.2 million over the entire spending review period. That is a quarter of a million more than the previous Government’s commitment.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North says that the bank payroll tax should be used to help youth employment, but let us consider the number of ways the Labour party has already announced it would be used. The Leader of the Opposition was asked where the money would come from to reverse the increase in VAT, and he said:
“I said for example we should have a higher bank levy.”
It was also suggested that it be used to pay for higher capital spending of about £7.5 billion in 2010, which would have required £6 billion from the bank levy. The Leader of the Opposition said that reversing child benefit changes could be afforded by using the bank payroll tax—yet another use for it.
The bank payroll tax is the tax that continues to give, the tax that the Opposition always turn to when they want to find a way of plugging the black hole in their figures. They used it to explain how they would reverse tax credit savings, spend more money on the regional growth fund, cut the deficit and turn empty shops into community centres. We have heard a remarkable number of ways in which something that the previous Government said was a one-off would be used to fill the black hole in Labour’s economic thinking.
Charlie Elphicke
How many times over have the Opposition spent that money so far?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend is right to ask me that question. About 15 times. Every time there is a tricky question, what is the answer? Let us reintroduce the one-off bank payroll tax. That demonstrates the emptiness at the heart of Labour’s economic policy. It has no concrete ideas to tackle what happened in the financial crisis or the economic problems that it left behind. The Opposition are reduced to trotting out the same stale arguments for the fifth time running, and I urge the House to reject them once again.
Catherine McKinnell
We have heard some passionate speeches from Labour Members, but I am concerned about the lack of contributions from Government Members. Only one, the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), contributed in the entire debate. He put forward some interesting views and theories, and I commend him for engaging in the debate, because there is little of more importance right now than youth unemployment.
The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech, however, by hailing a return to the 1980s. I do not know about other Opposition Members, but it sent a shudder of fear through me, because although some people had the time of their lives in the 1980s—we have fond images of the City, the champagne flowing, the pinstripe suits and the brick-sized mobile phones—for many the 1980s were not pleasant or a time of growth but devastating, particularly for youth unemployment. Parts of the UK, including my region of the north-east, other English regions, Scotland and Wales, suffered dreadful decimation of their traditional manufacturing industries, and in many ways are still paying the price. We risk repeating that fate today, which is why we are proposing to impose a bank payroll tax on the very institutions that played a large part in causing the international financial crisis that led first to the recession and then to today’s double-dip recession.
Mr Gauke
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill proposes wide-ranging reforms of the tax system to reward work and promote growth. It supports business and growth, creates a fairer, more efficient and simpler tax system, and builds on our commitment to improving the tax policy-making approach. However, it should be seen against the fiscal backdrop that we inherited.
Before I discuss the Bill in more detail, let me remind Members of the challenges that we face. When we came to power, we were confronted by the largest peacetime deficit that the country had ever seen. One pound in every four was borrowed. Members will recall—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am finding it rather difficult to hear the Minister.
Mr Gauke
Members will recall that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility revealed that the underlying damage to the economy and our challenge in repairing it was much greater than anyone had thought. It was therefore vital for us to take decisive action to restore the economic stability that was needed for recovery, and the Bill is part of that. In order to address the enormous debts that we inherited, confront Britain’s problems and get the economy moving, the Government have undertaken a sustained programme of deficit reduction.
As I said earlier, the Bill supports business and growth. It implements milestones for the corporation tax roadmap, overhauls the controlled foreign companies regime, and introduces the patent box.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentioned the controlled foreign companies regime. I support the Government’s efforts to ensure that all the tax that must be paid in the UK is paid in the UK, but, as he knows, concern has been expressed about the possibility that by introducing these rules the Government will inadvertently harm small developing countries which may lose tax revenue. I hope that they will ensure that there is no such side effect.
Mr Gauke
We debated that in the Committee of the whole House. The purpose of the CFC rules is to protect the UK tax base, as has always been the case, but the Government have a proud record of supporting developing countries, and we have a firm commitment to meeting our international obligations on that front. This country also has a proud record of building capacity in developing countries and improving their ability to collect taxes. In many developing countries, the UK has already made a substantial contribution, and we will continue to do so.
Both the patent box and the CFC changes form part of the Government’s wider plans, which will help UK businesses to operate in an increasingly globalised world. I am sure all Members agree that those measures are essential to restore medium and long-term growth.
Despite the challenging economic backdrop that the Government inherited, we have made significant progress. We have already introduced a further cut in the rate of corporation tax that will give us the lowest rate in the G7, the fourth lowest rate in the G20, and the lowest rate that this country has ever known. By next year, the Government will have cut corporation tax by 6%, helping to make the UK the most competitive country in the G20. According to the OBR’s assessment of the Budget, the reduction will increase the level of business investment by about 1% by the end of the forecast period. That is equivalent to an increase in the total amount of business investment of £3.4 billion between now and 2016.
Many businesses have seen that we are, as promised, open for business. WPP and others have recently announced that they are considering returning to the UK, or that they wish to set up business here. I am delighted to say that Rowan and Lancashire have already come here, and once the CFC rules are in place in 2013, we shall be looking for more businesses to follow them. Following the Bill’s publication in March, one of the big four advisory firms announced that it was engaged in discussions with between 10 and 15 multinational companies that were considering locating substantial operations in Britain as a result of corporate tax reforms. The CBI has commented that these much-needed changes
“will help make the UK a more attractive place for companies to invest, do business and create jobs.”
The Government aim to create a tax system that is easy to understand and with which it is easy to comply, and the Bill contributes to that. It provides real help for families and business. It raises the personal allowance to £8,105—which, curiously, was not mentioned very frequently in Committee—and, combined with the further increase of £1,100 next year, will mean a tax cut for 24 million people and 2 million people being taken out of income tax altogether.
Sheila Gilmore
The Minister was waxing lyrical about simplification, and I was wondering whether he has reconsidered his view as to whether the proposed child benefit reform creates simplification or complication.
Mr Gauke
If we do not want people earning £20,000, £25,000 or £30,000 a year to be paying for benefits to go to much wealthier households, the alternative would be an extension of the tax credit system. That would have placed a much greater burden both on households and the Government. Of the available alternatives, we have gone for the simpler option.
We are deferring the 3p per litre duty increase that was planned for August to January next year. Action by this Government to reduce the deficit and rebuild the economy is already benefiting businesses and families and keeping mortgage rates low. As hon. Members know, this Government have also had to make difficult decisions so we can tackle the deficit left to us by the previous Administration. They include withdrawing child benefit from households earning more than £50,000. That is a fair way to make savings, so we can meet our targets to cut the deficit.
We are also taking steps to ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share too. The Budget package ensures that the wealthiest will pay five times more than the cost of reducing the additional rate of income tax. The introduction of a new higher rate of stamp duty land tax of 7% on properties sold for more than £2 million will raise over £1 billion in the next five years. At the same time, this Government are also tackling avoidance, as demonstrated in the Bill. The new SDLT enveloping entry charge rate of 15% will deter those seeking to put their high-value property into corporate structures to avoid tax. Also, debt buy-back measures will raise over £500 million from banks that try to avoid paying the tax due, and the introduction of the UK-Switzerland agreement will ensure we can address the tax loss from those who put their money into Swiss banks to evade tax.
There has been extensive scrutiny of this Bill, including about 44 hours in Public Bill Committee. From looking at some of the new clauses tabled for today, I am happy to see that the Opposition continue to stick to their same theme on this Bill, which is to ask for reports, rather than focusing on policies. We have seen 34 Opposition-requested reports over the last 10 weeks, but no real policy alternatives. Yesterday, we were discussing Groucho Marx, and I wonder if the Opposition ever needed to be reminded of the quote:
“The problem with doing nothing is that you never know when you are finished.”
In order to make progress with Government business in good time, we agreed with the Opposition, through the usual channels, to programme parts of this Bill.
It is a delight to see my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) once again in his usual place. As he rightly said yesterday, this legislation is the body, soul and guts of this Budget.
I thank all who participated in Committee and on Report.
Fiona O'Donnell
It is very generous of the Minister to give way. Would he also like to reflect on the comment made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that a good government is one that take tough decisions and stick to them? Does the Minister think that could be said in respect of their handling of this Bill?
Mr Gauke
This Government have taken tough decisions to bring the deficit down, and we are sticking to that plan even though some Opposition Members would rather give up on deficit reduction and continue to borrow in the same unsustainable way that we borrowed up until 2010. This Government remain determined to stick to that plan. I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to underline that point.
I thank all those who have been involved in every stage of this Bill, including both Front Benchers and Back Benchers engaged in this matter, not to mention various others. I wish briefly to mention a couple of Treasury officials. First, I congratulate Mr Edward Troup, who, as announced earlier this week, has accepted the post of tax assurance commissioner and second permanent secretary at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. His wealth of experience and enthusiasm will be a great asset for HMRC, but a sad loss to the Treasury. I also thank Jamie Miller, who has been the Bill manager for this Bill, and indeed has served on the past six Bills over the past four years. Despite that, he has remained remarkably cheerful, notwithstanding the provocation that all of us have given on that front.
In conclusion, this is a good Bill that builds a stronger and more balanced economy. It will strengthen the UK, making us more competitive and more ready to face the challenges ahead, and I commend it to the House.