Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and David Gauke

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

It would have been popular.

[Mr Gauke]

None the less, under this Chancellor and this Government, we will stick to the long-term economic plan and avoid populist giveaways that could damage the public finances.

I could spend some time on these clauses—they are a significant achievement for the Government and I am delighted we are making further progress on increasing the personal allowance—but I shall deal with amendment 1, tabled by the Opposition. It is the annual debate we have on these matters; it is familiar to me and, I suspect, to you, Sir Roger. It proposes that the Government publish a report reviewing the impact of setting the additional rate at 50% within three months of passing the Bill. In addition, it asks for an assessment of

“the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45 per cent and 50 per cent on the amount of income tax currently paid by someone with a taxable income of…£150,000…and…£1,000,000 per year.”

To be credible, such an analysis would need to take behavioural impacts into account, like the HMRC report on the additional rate published at Budget 2012. Simply looking at theoretical income tax liabilities when increasing taxes is not enough. For perhaps the first time in a long time in these debates, we might have made a bit of progress in trying to understand Labour’s position. The HMRC report concluded that the underlying yield from the introduction of the 50p rate was much lower than originally forecast owing to large behavioural effects. It would be fair to say that when the 50p rate was introduced by the previous Government, they made allowances for behavioural effects. The question is whether it was sufficient.

When HMRC looked at this again, it was clear that the behavioural effect was greater than anticipated by the previous Government. Indeed, it is quite possible that it cost the Exchequer money. So let me take this opportunity to assure hon. Members once more that the Government already consider the impacts of any policy decisions taken, and they take the behavioural effects into account. The simple point is that the 50p rate was failing to raise the money anticipated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I am spoilt for choice, but ladies first.

Finance Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and David Gauke

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate. The previous debate finished slightly earlier so there was a clash with something else that I had in my diary. However, I want to make a few comments on this because it harks back to new clause 14, which we debated earlier. All we are looking for in new clause 11 is some transparency on this policy. We know it was introduced with great fanfare by the Chancellor at the Conservative party conference last October when he said:

“Workers of the world unite.”

The conclusion to the workers of the world uniting was that everyone united against this policy.

This is incredibly relevant to the Finance Bill because it has created a significant tax loophole. On new clause 14 on the 50p tax rate and the need for transparency on how much tax that takes, the Government said clearly that 45p brings in more tax at the top rate than 50p, which brings in less because of tax avoidance. In this case, we are looking at the biggest tax avoidance measure we can get. It has been described by the Institute of Fiscal Studies as a billion-pound tax lollipop on the table. If we are serious about tackling such tax avoidance, it would be great for transparency, not just for the House but for the country, if a report were produced showing take up and the consequences of that.

Because it is such an important prospect, we need to look at what the Chancellor tried to do in his conference speech. We will end up in the situation where people are able to sell their rights for a few pounds that might be worth nothing. That is not the kind of working society that we want. It is not the kind of partnership that we want between employers and employees and trade unions, whereby people can sell their rights for maternity pay, unfair dismissal, and all those rights referred to by Beecroft in his report for the Prime Minister. We now have a fire-at-will culture, which does nothing to dispel the Government’s move towards a hire-and-fire culture with this proposal. There are the hallmarks of another tax avoidance scheme. Why on earth would we want to produce a scheme that not only allows people to sell their rights and not be covered by any employment rights, but to be in a situation whereby those at the top end of businesses can use these mechanisms to avoid paying tax? I hope that the Minister can address some of those serious concerns when he replies.

I cannot understand why the Government would not accept new clause 11 if they are so confident that this measure will be well used, resulting in a transformation in entrepreneurship, with people hiring more and more employees because they do not have what the Government would call the burden of employee relations. Why would they not want to produce a report showing how many people are using the measure? I do not understand why they do not want to produce a report showing the impact on the Treasury coffers, through capital gains tax and any other tax receipts that might be lost.

It is important for the Government to have confidence in their proposals. The Chancellor was confident when he announced it with great fanfare. I am not sure whether it will have any take-up, because of the way it has been presented and the message it sends out. Justin King, the former chief executive of Sainsbury’s, said that it sends out a poor message. Many chief executives and business owners say that it sends out such a poor message on the partnership we want in the workplace.

Therefore, if the Government wish to have confidence in their own policies, it is only right that they agree to new clause 11, bring forward the report setting out the take-up and the data collected on the scheme and publish further reports every year. If the scheme is denying people their rights at work at the same time as denying the Treasury valuable income, this House should know about it and be able to debate it so that it can hold the Government properly to account.

[Mr Gauke]

As we have heard, new clause 11 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of the new employee shareholder status on tax revenues and to publish a report setting out the impact on capital gains tax receipts, the estimated value of shares owned by employees with employee shareholder agreements and the number of such employees. Let me set out why I believe the new clause is unnecessary—a word the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) rightly predicted would come up, although, to be fair, we have had this debate before.

It is far too early for any detailed information on the employee shareholder status to be available. It has been available only since 1 September 2013, and we have not yet reached the deadline by which companies must submit their annual share scheme returns covering that period. Therefore, the Government do not yet have full information about the use of the new employment status. Once received, it will take time to process and analyse those data. The Government set out the potential impact on tax revenues in our tax information and impact note for the employee shareholder tax reliefs, and there are currently no additional data available that would allow that to be updated.

In addition, it is not necessary for a requirement to publish information to be placed in legislation. HMRC publishes a wide range of information about employee share schemes with no such statutory obligation. For example, only last week it published a wealth of data on the use of the tax advantaged employee share schemes during the year ending 2012-13.

We will consider whether that type of publication is appropriate for employee shareholder status or whether a different approach might better enable an evaluation of the employee shareholder status. As the Government have made clear, the employee shareholder scheme is different from the existing tax advantaged employee share schemes. It is primarily designed as an employment measure to encourage choice, growth and flexibility over the long term, rather than being focused on tax advantages. We will want to take those broader factors into account when evaluating the policy. However, given that employee shareholder legislation has been in operation for less than a year, it is simply too early to be finalising any details in that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I appreciate the intervention just made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). The issue is surely not one of employment flexibility; it is about maximising tax advantages. The policy has been announced on the basis of allowing companies—particularly high-growth technology companies—to employ people on a more flexible basis, but the example just given by the hon. Gentleman goes completely against that. That shows that the scheme is being used for tax-avoidance purposes.

[Mr Gauke]

I do not accept that. As far as avoidance is concerned, the tax reliefs are intended to encourage the take-up of employee shareholder status by individuals when that is offered to them. However, those reliefs are not an end in themselves. A number of rules in the legislation will prevent abuse of the new status while keeping it as simple as possible for employers and employees to use. For example, there are rules that will stop people with a material interest in the relevant business exploiting the tax reliefs for their or their families’ benefit. We will always keep the matter under review. As I said, if we see any abuse, we will act. However, we believe that we have put in place rules that protect the Exchequer from such tax avoidance.

I want to say a little more about take-up. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) made a good point: the argument is simultaneously that no one is making use of the scheme and that the scheme will cost a lot in tax avoidance. There is something of a tension between those two positions.

We decided not to introduce a pre-registration or pre-approval system for those wishing to make an employee shareholder agreement. The Office of Tax Simplification has told us that HMRC pre-approval of share schemes is outdated and time consuming for businesses. Data on employee shareholder status will therefore be picked up from companies’ annual share scheme returns to HMRC. As I said, the scheme has been in place only since the beginning of September 2013, so we have not even reached the deadline by which companies must submit their returns to HMRC for that period. It is far too early to finalise any details of publication.

[Mr Gauke]

No, that is not the case. As I said, when the original legislation was passed, protections were put in place; a moment ago, I gave an example of one designed to prevent abuse. We will continue to monitor the issue. As with all activities, if evidence of avoidance emerges, the Government will be determined to act, as we have time and again.

On the data on employee shareholders and on take-up, a question raised by a number of hon. Members, I am simply seeking to explain that I am not in a position to give the information that the hon. Lady and others have asked for because we have not required pre-approval or pre-registration for the scheme. That point is also relevant to the FT figures on take-up that have been mentioned. As there is no need for companies making use of the employee shareholding scheme to contact BIS in advance and there is no registration or approval system, we do not expect BIS to have a definitive list of all those companies that have made use of the scheme. That is why I am not in a position to give that information to the House and why the figures that were used by the Financial Times should not necessarily attract a huge amount of excitement.

The scheme is a new facet of our employment practices. It is probably unfair to judge a scheme such as this in its first few months because it will need time to bed in before there is wider knowledge about it and it is more widely used. As I have said, I am not in a position to provide information at this point.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to my favourite Treasury Minister for allowing me to intervene again. What the Minister is missing is that, according to his Government’s own figures in the Red Book, £1 billion has been allocated to this proposal. Why will he not agree to the new clause, which would allow the House to scrutinise what that £1 billion of public money is being used for? That way we could avoid the situation raised by the hon. Member for Redcar in which people use the scheme to avoid tax rather than as a proposal to create growth and to get more people into employment by denying them their workers’ rights.

[Mr Gauke]

It is always a great pleasure to give way to my favourite Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South. In quoting the figure of £1 billion he is somewhat conflating two things. One is the OBR’s estimate of the potential cost of the scheme some years into the future, if a whole set of circumstances apply and we do not take action to deal with any concerns that might emerge. As far as the Red Book is concerned, the published estimates of the annual cost of the measures are £10 million in 2016-17 and £45 million in 2017-18. Those are the numbers and we have no reason to believe that they will prove inaccurate, so to correct the hon. Gentleman for the record, we are not talking about a cost of £1 billion.

New clause 11 would impose an obligation on the Government that is not only unnecessary but, as I have set out in some detail, could not be met given the current availability of data on take-up of the employee shareholder status. Given that the new clause is unnecessary and would be unworkable, I ask the Opposition not to press it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It will be no surprise that I find the Minister’s response extremely disappointing and a little concerning in its complacency towards a policy about which widespread concern has been expressed. Taking away the rights of working people across the UK is no substitute for a proper strategy for economic growth. The policy makes it easier to reduce rights at work and fire people, rather than making it easier to hire people. That shows just how out of touch the Government are.

I commend the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on his thoughtful speech. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on his mammoth and excellent speech, and my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). Opposition Members have put forward a powerful argument for the reasonable new clause that we have tabled. It simply asks the Government to make a proper assessment of who is taking up the shares for rights offer and what the cost to the Exchequer will be, including any loss from tax avoidance or abuse. As far as we can see, this is just another way in which the Government are trying to water down the rights of people at work.

Frankly, to Opposition Members and the many business organisations that have expressed their concerns, this policy stinks. The House and members of the public deserve to know exactly what the implications of the policy will be before the horse has bolted. The Government say that they will only shut the gate once that has happened. [Interruption.] I hear hon. Members groan at that, but I quote Lord Deben:

“I cannot imagine any circumstances whatever in which this would be of any use to any business that I have ever come across in my entire life.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 293.]

I think that he puts it very well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and David Gauke

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right. The reality is that this Government are raising more from the richest. We are doing it in a more effective and efficient way, and the 50p rate failed on its own terms.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell the House and the country today that his Government rule out any more substantial tax cuts for the richest before the next general election?

[Mr Gauke]

What this Government will do is continue to stick to a long-term economic plan that ensures that we are competitive, that we reduce the deficit and that we put in place the conditions for sustainable growth.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and David Gauke

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I was about to say that I was delighted to receive an intervention from my hon. Friend, but perhaps I should say that I have noted his comments, and will move on.

I should like to mention Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. At my surgery—no doubt this is the case at the surgeries and advice sessions of many right hon. and hon. Members—I have been beset by the complicated problems that my constituents have experienced as a result of their not understanding the HMRC process. Indeed, taxation errors have been made by both HMRC and employers. HMRC is undoubtedly under pressure, with more job losses over the next few years. In fact, I think its work force will have halved by 2015. I hope that the Government will take into account the complexities of the legislation to make sure that HMRC has the resources to be able to deal with it properly. The Federation of Small Businesses has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) in connection with the number of small businesses that use the pay-as-you-earn system. There are problems with self-assessment, which can become complex for someone who satisfies some of the tests of the legislation, but conducts personal business in different parts of the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) raised the issue of tax avoidance. If there are different income tax rates in Scotland and England, I hope that HMRC will have the resources to deal with that so that people do not deliberately try to satisfy the tests of the legislation to benefit from a different income tax rate on the other side of the border. Many of the constituents of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) will be affected by those cross-border issues, as we have heard.

HMRC definitely needs the resources required to be able to deal with that properly, and to put provisions in place to make sure that people understand the system. All too often, as the Member representing Edinburgh South, I have dealt with self-employed constituents who have filled in self-assessment forms and then experienced a hard-nosed approach from HMRC in some pretty dreadful letters. Some letters say that it will send agents round to seek to pin down possessions and sell them to cover the debt when, in fact, HMRC has made an error in its tax coding and the problem has to be sorted out at a different level.

All those issues come together. The measure is welcome, as it gives the Scottish Government and Parliament real accountability for the proportion of tax that they can raise locally in Scotland for the people of Scotland. However, we must be aware that there will be many small businesses, employers and employees who will be concerned about how the measure will operate. If the system is to be accountable and is to operate practically for the benefit of the people of Scotland and for the Scottish Parliament, we must make sure that it is not undermined by a complex set of rules that are easily circumvented as a result of tax avoidance or because genuinely self-employed or small businesses cannot understand it sufficiently. We must put support in place to ensure that they follow the rules properly and so that the measure operates in the most effective manner.

[Mr Gauke]

We have had a lengthy and thorough debate. First, I intend to address the amendments and then set out in a little more detail the various tests on what constitutes a Scottish taxpayer. Finally, I hope to pick up the points that have been made in the debate and try to answer as many technical questions as possible. Whether I will be able to find the solution to the question of whether Mr Stewart senior is a Scottish taxpayer remains to be seen, but I will do my best.

Amendment 68 would require the Scottish Parliament to consult such persons as Scottish Ministers consider appropriate before setting the Scottish rate. I believe that that is inappropriate, as it interferes with the accountability of the Scottish Parliament to the people of Scotland. It should not be for the UK Parliament to tell the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Ministers how they should go about setting the rate of tax. It is for them to decide and ultimately to be accountable for that decision to the Scottish people through the ballot box. There is nothing to stop the Scottish Parliament in its Standing Orders including a requirement to consult or take evidence on setting the rate if it wishes to do so. Rule 6.6 of the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament sets the remit of its Finance Committee, which is required to consider and report on, among other things,

“proposals for the making of a tax-varying resolution”.

It will be for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether a similar provision should be made in relation to any proposal to set the Scottish rate of income tax. That is a matter for the Scottish Parliament—it is not something that we should prescribe in Westminster.

Amendment 69 requires the Treasury formally to consult Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament and other persons before it uses its powers to disapply or modify the application of the Scottish rate of income tax. It may help if I describe the purpose of this power. We plan to use it to set some of the detailed rules on the operation of the Scottish rate of income tax, because any changes have to operate within the UK income tax framework, which is a reserved matter. The Scottish Parliament has given its consent to the Bill through the legislative consent motion, which includes that power and the way in which it will operate. It was not raised as a concern by the Scottish Bill Committee in its extensive scrutiny of the measure.

Having said that, I can confirm that HMRC will work closely with all parties concerned, and it has set up three technical groups that include representatives of business and of individual taxpayers. The Scottish Government participates in all those groups, which cover in particular how reliefs for charitable contributions and pensions will be treated. The Government will publish draft legislation in advance, giving all parties an opportunity to comment. That is very much in line with our approach outlined in “Tax policy making: a new approach”, which was published at the time of the June Budget. Tax policy making has been criticised as piecemeal and reactive. I want a new approach, with consultation on policy design and scrutiny of draft legislative proposals as its cornerstone.

I accept the motivation behind the amendment, but I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) agrees that this is something we are very much doing already, so the amendment is unnecessary. Proposed new section 80G of the Scotland Act 1998 provides the Treasury with supplementary powers to allow modifications to be made at a later date. It allows, for example, certain types of income or relief to be included or excluded from the Scottish rate to provide the flexibility to be able to respond to stakeholder input and the changing environment.

Subsection (4) of new section 80G gives the Treasury a limited power to make any changes retrospective to the beginning of the tax year. The timing of the Budget cycle is such that many Finance Bills contain proposals that come into effect before Royal Assent. I hesitate to bring back painful memories for the official Opposition, but hon. Members might recall that the previous Government introduced a clause on Report of the Finance Bill 2008, increasing the personal allowance by £600 in 2008-09 in response to pressure over the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax. As is common, Royal Assent did not occur until the summer of that year—until 21 July 2008 to be precise—but that clause took effect from the start of the tax year. A more technical example is section 60 of the Finance Act 2006, which I imagine you recall well, Ms Primarolo. That redefined the income tax exemption for employer-provided mobile telephones, and removed the ability of the family or household of the employee to use such a phone tax free. The clause took effect for the tax year 2006-07, but did not receive Royal Assent until 19 July 2006.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and David Gauke

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The right hon. Gentleman knows the state of the public finances that we have inherited. We have pursued the policy that we set out in our party manifesto before the general election and have reversed the most serious effect of Labour’s jobs tax. The Opposition’s policy is to go further—they want a bigger jobs tax. The increase in the rate for employers’ national insurance contributions, which is mitigated by the increase in the threshold, involves the rate going up from 12.8% to 13.8%—I say that for the benefit of any Labour Members, including the shadow Chancellor, who are not quite aware of that. To raise the same amount of tax as the VAT increase would have done, Labour would have had to increase that rate not just to 13.8% but to 16.7%. What do hon. Members think that the impact on the Thames Gateway, east London and jobs in Walthamstow would have been if we had pursued that policy, which the Labour party believes in? It does not have much by way of economic policy, but that is one of them.

[Ian Murray]

Let me give the Minister a little of my experience as a business owner with up to 12 staff. Small entrepreneurs and people who run small businesses in Edinburgh are, like me, far more concerned about the impact on our businesses of the number of customers not coming through our doors because of the VAT rise than they were about any increase in national insurance that the Labour party proposed before the election. I would gladly pay £30 a week more for each member of my staff than have no customers left.

[Mr Gauke]

I do not want to reopen the whole argument on everything that should be done to reduce the deficit, but we have to get it down. I am not sure whether the Labour party grasps the need to get the deficit down, but there is no doubt that it has to be eradicated at some point—even the shadow Chancellor agrees with that. The Labour party believes that national insurance contributions are the best tax by which to do that, but all we have heard from Labour Members this afternoon is why they want a cut—and they want a bigger cut than we are offering.