David Gauke
Main Page: David Gauke (Independent - South West Hertfordshire)Department Debates - View all David Gauke's debates with the HM Treasury
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. She will know that the legislation passed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) in the last Parliament allowed salaries of more than £1 million to be open to scrutiny, which would address the issue she mentions.
There is some merit in bringing this issue to the attention of the House, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for doing so. He will know that there are some issues to do with his amendment delaying corporation tax cuts, but I am grateful that he has addressed the issue and I hope the Minister will respond in due course.
Amendment 17 is about the enterprise investment scheme, which we support. In Committee, we asked the Minister whether he had state aid approval for the EIS and I would welcome an update on whether he has since made progress on that.
I have some sympathy with amendment 51, tabled by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). On Second Reading and in the Committee of the whole House, we tabled amendments that mirrored his amendment in many ways, asking the Chancellor to produce before the end of September an assessment of the impact of taxation on ring-fenced profits, business investment and growth, including an assessment of the long-term sustainability of oil and gas exploration in the North sea. For the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), the way that the proposal was brought forward contained elements of surprise for the industry. There was a lack of consultation and there have been consequences. The right hon. Member for Gordon and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) both mentioned Statoil and the great impact that the decision has had on that company’s potential $10 billion—or £6.1 billion—investment in the North sea.
It is important that the Economic Secretary has had discussions—some potentially very exciting and energetic—with oil companies on these matters as part of her initiation into her role in government. I hope that she will ensure that she reports back. I also hope that the Minister will accept amendment 51, or at least accept an amendment in principle for the future.
Finally, although my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) is not present today because of other matters, I very much welcome his amendment 9, which is part of this group. We raised the issue of video games tax relief in debates on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. However, we need to look at the issue again in detail, if only because the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) said when in opposition:
“We are committed to a tax break along the lines of the video games tax credit. We have been calling for tax breaks for the video game industry for the last three years.”
He said that during the general election, on 13 April 2010. He is now the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, yet he has been sat on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said in his Budget statement last June:
“In the current climate, with the deficit the size…all those reductions in tax must be more than paid for by other changes to business taxation, so we will not go ahead with the poorly targeted tax relief for the video games industry.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 175.]
My hon. Friend’s amendment 9 asks the Government to look again at the issue. I simply put on record the fact that, yet again, those in government said one thing during the election and something else afterwards. We need to encourage the video games industry so that we can compete on a global scale.
In summary, there are some useful amendments in this group. I cannot accept everything that the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, but the other amendments before us have some merit. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments, which propose a number of changes to the taxation of business. Let me start by reiterating our position on business tax. The first step in the Government’s plan for growth is a competitive UK tax system. In fact, the Government’s aim is to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20, and we have been clear about how we intend to achieve that. Last November we published our corporate tax road map, setting out our plans for reform over the next five years and the principles underpinning those reforms. I am quite clear that if we are to provide business with the certainty that it needs to invest in the UK, tax reforms need to maintain stability, avoid complexity and ensure a level playing field for taxpayers.
Let me deal first with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and in particular amendment 15, which deals with directors’ pay, and on which we saw an unlikely alliance between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) in defence of the interests of capital versus workers—if I can phrase it in a way that will please my hon. Friend but not the hon. Gentleman—albeit the highest paid workers. It is worth noting that both hon. Members have made many declarations of independence, and today was no exception. As I have said, a competitive tax regime is the foundation of our plan for growth, and the consequence of amendment 15 would be to delay the reduction in corporation tax.
The Government take the essence of the hon. Gentleman’s concern—directors’ remuneration—seriously; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills raised it on 22 June in a speech to the Association of British Insurers, asking how we can ensure that directors’ remuneration is effectively linked to company performance. To help answer that question, the Government already have plans to consult in two relevant areas. In July, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will look at the narrative aspects of reporting directors’ remuneration, examining the provisions dealing with the disclosure of directors’ remuneration and making the link to company performance much clearer. In the autumn, the Department will explore other policy options related to the role of remuneration committees and company accountability to shareholders.
Turning directly to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, let me first remind him that UK-quoted companies are already required to publish a directors’ remuneration report. That includes full individual details of each director’s pay, including salary and bonuses, share schemes and all other forms of remuneration. His proposal to make the remuneration vote binding in nature would raise difficulties, as such a vote would inevitably cut across contractual arrangements already entered into between the company and the director. That is why the vote is currently advisory in nature.
John McDonnell
Is this issue to be part of the consultation in the autumn? Will it be addressed at all?
Mr Gauke
As I have said, the consultations I have announced will focus on the narrative provisions, the role of remuneration committees and company accountability to shareholders. I am sure that representations could be made to the latter consultation. However, there remains a difficulty with cutting across contractual arrangements and I dare say that there might be issues with the Human Rights Act 1998 were that to happen.
John McDonnell
First, I think it would be greatly reassuring to the House overall if the issue of the binding vote was within the scope of those consultations. Secondly, the issue of contractual commitments has always been the red herring brought up on any future reform. The way around it is simply to make future contracts subject to that binding vote of shareholders.
Mr Gauke
I know that my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are watching this debate very closely and will have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s representations. I noticed that when he referred to the House as a whole, he gestured to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. Whether the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend necessarily represent the views of the House as a whole on all issues I am not sure, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point.
Steve Baker
May I say that I think the reason for this unlikely alliance is that the workers now are the capitalists through their pension funds and other investments? I remember a trade unionist explaining to me with some care the new movement for workers’ capital and I think we will be missing a trick as a free-market Government, if indeed we are a free-market Government, if we do not recognise that the workers now are the owners and that we need to help them take control of what they own.
Mr Gauke
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is trying to lose the support of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington on this, but I fully take his point on board and I shall ensure that BIS is aware of this debate. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has said that shareholder accountability is an area that his Department will be looking into in the autumn.
John McDonnell
This is a serious point, and I say to the Minister that this will come back time and again, because every Government structure put in place by successive Governments on this issue has been unsuccessful in controlling remuneration. There is outrage among the general public about what has been happening, not just in recent years but today with £6 billion bonuses in the City and elsewhere. I say to him in all seriousness that any Government need to address this issue, which concerns the democratic control of what are now public companies in terms of ownership.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman makes his point forcefully. It is worth pointing out that the UK leads the way internationally on the reporting of executive pay and accountability to shareholders. I hope that he will acknowledge that, just as I acknowledge the legitimate concerns he raises. It is our intention to make sure that the framework remains fit for purpose and in line with our approach to delivering long-term returns as our economy grows out of the recession.
The hon. Gentleman’s second amendment, amendment 17, would delay the introduction of clause 42 until a report on the impacts of the enterprise investment scheme had been published. In contrast with corporation tax as a whole, EIS is a focused relief with a particular purpose and is a vital component of the Government’s plan for growth. The scheme encourages investment into smaller, riskier companies by offering a tax incentive to investors. For example, it benefits new start-ups in high-tech sectors such as IT bioscience. Since 1994, about £7 billion from private investors has been contributed to qualifying companies. The Government are building on the success of the scheme with changes in this Finance Bill and in the Bill next year that will increase the incentive for people to invest in smaller companies, helping them to establish and grow.
John McDonnell
How do the Government assess value for money with regard to those schemes, if not in job creation?
Mr Gauke
There have been assessments of the enterprise investment scheme, which has been in place since 1994. We want to encourage greater investment, particularly in smaller companies. We recognise that sometimes there is market failure in that area, which is why tax incentives are justifiable. We have set out as much information as we can, but it is not something on which we can provide precise numbers. That is not the nature of the economy, but the scheme will encourage greater investment and that should be welcomed.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for his remarks on my award as tax personality of the year. Some may think it a somewhat oxymoronic award, but I can tell the House that it has changed my life considerably.
My hon. Friend brings much greater expertise to these matters than I do. I welcome the fact that he seeks simplicity, which is not always the case with new clauses and amendments to Finance Bills. I want to make a couple of points that relate to both his new clauses.
First, we do not see it as our role to direct the Office of Tax Simplification. The office has done a lot of good work, but it is important that its independence is respected. Secondly, in its broad work the OTS has looked at the various allowances and reliefs in the tax system and has concluded that they are not areas where it wants to devote its efforts. None the less, I know that the OTS will closely read my hon. Friend’s speech. We are always keen to look at areas where we can improve the administration of the tax system, including his proposals in new clause 14 on consolidated filing.
On new clause 12, the OTS has given initial consideration to capital allowances as part of its review of tax reliefs and its ongoing review of small business taxation. The Government have set out their approach to capital allowances in the corporate tax road map. Allowing each business asset to be written off for tax purposes in line with its own depreciation rates would not necessarily bring the benefits to businesses that the new clause anticipates. Some business assets would depreciate more slowly than they currently do under the capital allowances regime, and it should be noted that the annual investment allowance gives immediate write-off for the plant and machinery expenditure of 95% of UK businesses. There is thus a danger that the new clause could increase business tax complexity.
I know that my hon. Friend tabled his new clauses as probing provisions. I may not have entirely satisfied him, but he has put his case on record and the OTS will of course look carefully at what he says.
I turn finally to amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who has played a constructive role on the issue in the three months since the Budget announcement on oil and gas. He made an important contribution when the House debated clause 7 in the Committee of the whole House. He has stressed the importance of working closely with the industry in the months ahead, which the Government committed to do at the time of the Budget. We announced then that we would work with the industry in three key areas: setting the right trigger price for the fair fuel stabiliser; looking at whether we can find a way to provide long-term certainty on decommissioning relief; and looking at the case for new categories of field qualifying for the field allowance. I am pleased to tell the House that we are making good progress in these discussions. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who is here this evening, will update the House on progress on those discussions as soon as is appropriate. I hope and expect that she will be able to do so in the very near future. I thank my right hon. Friend for tabling his amendment. Although I have been unable to respond in full detail, I hope that the Government will be in a position to do so shortly.
In conclusion, I remind the House that it is the Government’s aim to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20. We have set out our plans for reform over the next five years in the corporate tax road map, which was published last November. In order to provide businesses with the certainty they need to invest in the UK, tax reforms need to maintain stability, avoid complexity and ensure a level playing field for taxpayers. Therefore, although we have had a good debate, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley to withdraw the motion.
Nigel Mills
My purpose in moving the new clause was to encourage the Government down the route of tax simplification, which I hope I have achieved tonight. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1
Charge and main rates for 2011-12
Mr Love
I associate myself with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and its focus on inequality. I want to pick up on that focus, and on the discussion we had a few moments ago about the Government’s claim that we are all in this together. I shall subject that to scrutiny through amendment 13, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). As my right hon. Friend said, and as has been said by those on our Front Bench, the Conservative manifesto at the 2010 general election included a commitment to
“freeze public sector pay for one year in 2011, excluding the one million lowest paid workers”.
It was announced in the 2010 Budget that there would be a two-year pay freeze, except for those earning £21,000 or less, who would receive an increase of at least £250 a year. In his statement, the Chancellor went on to say that 1.7 million public servants would benefit from that and receive the £250 for two years.
In the Budget statement this year, the Chancellor had changed his tune somewhat. He said:
“I can confirm today that in the coming year all workers in the armed forces, the prison service and the NHS, and teachers and civil servants, earning £21,000 a year or less will receive a pay uplift of £250.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 508, c. 963.]
That is considerably less than the commitment given in the 2010 Budget, and it is different from—and, in a sense, considerably less than—the commitment given in the Conservative manifesto. Some work has been done that shows that if the measures include only public sector workers who are under ministerial control and subject to pay review bodies—that is in essence what the Chancellor is saying—that commitment is very considerably less. As I understand it, it equates to less than half the original number affected.
In supporting amendment 30, I want to ask the Minister directly whether he accepts that the Conservative manifesto misled the people of this country. Does he accept that, in his Budget statement in 2010, the Chancellor misled the House and the people of this country? Does he also accept that the present number of people who will benefit from the £250 uplift is considerably lower than the number originally envisaged? In those circumstances, and given the difficulties that we face in a debate of this nature on taxation, will he accept the thrust of the amendment? Will the Government recommit to doing something to address low pay for those earning less than £21,000 a year? Will the Minister also ensure that everyone earning under that amount will receive the £250, given that only some are doing so at present?
Mr Gauke
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. Amendment 10 would require the Office for Budget Responsibility to report on the revenue raised by the additional rate of income tax. Amendment 14, meanwhile, seeks a report on the impact on inequality of all taxes, and amendment 30 seeks to provide a £250 reduction in the tax liability of all public sector workers earning less than £21,000.
I deal first with amendment 10. At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor asked HMRC to assess the revenue raised by the additional rate. As I explained during the extensive debate on this clause in Committee, which the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) will well recall, HMRC will consider all the available evidence on the impact of the additional rate, including data from the 2010-11 self-assessment returns, which will become available next year. Data from tax returns are clearly essential in any assessment of the revenue raised, but of course they contain confidential taxpayer information and are best reviewed by HMRC. It already has the expertise in monitoring and evaluating tax measures and is resourced to do so in future. The Office for Budget Responsibility has a different remit in producing independent economic and fiscal forecasts, judging policy against the fiscal mandate and analysing the sustainability of the public finances.
Kate Green
I understand what the Minister says, but does that not suggest that one useful role that the Office for Budget Responsibility could fulfil would be to take a dynamic look at the effect of the 50% tax rates on, for example, the propensity of people to remain in the country and pay that tax and the longer-term impact on the economy?
Mr Gauke
I would not necessarily have put the hon. Lady down as an advocate of a more dynamic assessment of the tax measures, but perhaps I was mistaken in my understanding of her views. The purpose of the review that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced will be to enable HMRC to see what has happened in the first year. It is right to say that there are long-term effects that will not necessarily be incorporated in that first year’s data, and I think anyone with an understanding of these matters would acknowledge that.
It is perfectly reasonable to make the point that if the 50p rate were to become a permanent feature of our tax system, it could damage the UK’s competitiveness. That is a point that the noble Lord Mandelson appears to support and I believe that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who introduced the 50p rate as Chancellor, saw it as a temporary measure, while Tony Blair has made it clear that he thinks the 50p rate is a mistaken policy—full stop. Our view, however, is that at this time, because of the sacrifices we are asking people to make, the 50p rate does play a role, but we want to analyse what revenue it brings in the short term and to gain an understanding of its long-term effects.
As the additional rate was introduced by the previous Government, I can perfectly understand why the right hon. Member for Delyn is so interested in establishing whether it was a successful policy, but when he talks about public scrutiny of Budget measures I must ask him what public scrutiny was there when the 50p rate was introduced? To what extent was the analysis published then, and to what extent was it published when the 10p rate of income tax was doubled? What information was put into the public domain at that point? As a Government, we have done much more on putting information into the public domain by publishing our analysis. Announcements in this area will be made by the Chancellor at the appropriate time. It is peculiar, however, to hear the Opposition proposing more evidence-based policy making only to reject the notion, it seems to me, that this Government should consider the evidence before making any further commitments.
I turn now to amendment 14, which deals with the impact of tax on inequality. I realise that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has his own views on inequality, some of which may not necessarily be shared by his Front-Bench team. I thank him for tabling this amendment, however, as it provides me with an opportunity to highlight the significant steps that the Government have taken in 13 months to address inequality through the tax system.
First and foremost, the Government are committed to ensuring that the income tax system gives more support to those on low to middle incomes, and rewards the efforts of those who choose to work. That is why the June 2010 Budget announced a £1,000 increase in the income tax personal allowance for those aged under 65. A further £630 increase was announced in Budget 2011. That will make the personal allowance £8,105 from next year. Together, those increases will benefit 25 million individuals, and take 1.1 million low-income individuals out of income tax—an important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) highlighted. Basic rate taxpayers will gain by £210 per year on average. That is part of our stated objective to increase the personal allowance to £10,000, with real terms steps in that direction every year.
Income tax is not the only area in which the Government are tackling inequality. All local authorities in England have voluntarily frozen or reduced their council tax in 2011-12 and as a result have qualified to receive additional Government grant equivalent to a 2.5% increase in their band D council tax. We have committed £1.9 billion to ease the burden on motorists, including the 1p cut in fuel duty as opposed to the 6p increase under the plans of the previous Government. We are supporting pensioners through the triple guarantee of state pensions being uprated by earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is highest. The television licence will be frozen for the next six years.
Clearly, the Government have taken great strides to tackle inequality in this country.
Kate Green
What steps have the Government taken to reduce inequality by concentrating on taxation not at the bottom of the income spectrum but at the top?
Mr Gauke
As was mentioned earlier, we have increased capital gains tax rates from those that we inherited, and our income tax decreases have been focused on the low paid. That is an example of what we are trying to do. The point is how to ensure that we have a competitive tax system so that we have the growth that the economy needs and that benefits all our constituents.
Let me turn to the report requested by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
I draw his attention to the detailed analysis that the Government have published on the impact of direct tax, indirect tax, tax credits and benefit reforms, which can be found in annexe A to “Budget 2011”. The Government have gone further than any previous Government in presenting distributional analysis of how changes to taxes, tax credits and benefits affect households. We have published detailed analysis at Budget 2011, the spending review and the June Budget 2010. That analysis shows that the top decile sees the largest losses from the cumulative impact of tax, tax credit and benefit reforms introduced at Budget 2011 and previous fiscal events. In cash terms, the top decile loses more than twice as much as the ninth decile, and 10 times as much as the bottom decile. That is the case if one looks at the overall impact or in cash terms, as a percentage of net income, or across income or expenditure deciles.
John McDonnell
Will the Government publish anything with regard to the distribution of wealth—for example, the impact of such policies on the Gini co-efficient?
Mr Gauke
We will make further announcements as and when necessary, but we are publishing much more information on distributional analysis than any previous Government have. It is right to do so, and to take steps to ensure that the House and the whole country can debate such matters with as much information presented in future. A striking contrast can be drawn with regard to one policy—the doubling of the 10p rate—about which the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) had concerns. It was difficult to obtain any information on that policy’s impact, although we have learned in recent weeks that much of the information about that was available to Ministers at the time.
Amendment 30 seeks to provide a one-off £250 reduction in the tax liability of all public sector employees earning less than £21,000. In the June 2010 Budget, we announced a two-year pay freeze for public sector workers earning a full-time equivalent of £21,000. That is one of the many difficult choices that we have had to make to help put the UK’s public finances back on track, and it does not mean that we do not value the work done throughout the public sector. All Members know that those in the public sector work hard for the benefit of society. However, pay freezes of this sort save jobs. Given that we are having to constrain public spending and given that the fiscal deficit requires cuts, a pay freeze will help to mitigate the effect of those cuts. Because we recognise that the freeze will be hardest on the lowest-paid public sector workers, it was announced in the June Budget that those earning a full-time equivalent of £21,000 or less would receive an uplift of at least £250 in both years of the freeze.
Both the Labour party’s manifesto at the time of the last general election and the 2009 pre-Budget report announced a 1% increase for public sector workers across the board, apart from the armed services. No distinction was made between the low paid and the high paid. Under a Labour Government, none of those earning less than £21,000 a year—including nurses, teaching assistants, police community support officers and hospital porters—would be receiving a £250 increase.
Mr Frank Field
What we said at the last general election is not very relevant, because we lost. The other side won, and made a commitment in the Budget. The Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box where the Minister is standing tonight, and said that 1.7 million low-paid workers in the public sector would receive an increase of £250. What we now want to know is how many are being paid the £250, and, if 1.7 million are not being paid that sum, what steps the Government will take to ensure that they are paid it.
Mr Gauke
The policy advocated by the Labour party when they were in government would have resulted in none of these public sector workers receiving £250.
We will ensure that the policy on pay increases for low-paid local government workers is applied across the civil service and to work forces with pay review bodies. That will include civil servants, NHS staff, teachers, members of the armed forces and those working in prisons. Many civil servants, nurses and prison officers, and the armed forces, have already received the £250 increase this year and can expect a further £250 increase next year, but other work forces have responsibility for negotiating their own pay deals. Decisions on the pay of local government work forces are for local government employers, rather than central Government, to negotiate. Provision was made in the local government settlement for local authorities to pay the £250 increase, but the fact remains that the decisions are made by local authorities. We gave them the opportunity to pursue the policy that we are pursuing at national level, but it is ultimately for them to decide how to pay their employees.
Mr Field
At the Dispatch Box, the Chancellor said that 1.7 million low-paid workers in the public sector would receive increases of £250 this year and next year. Will the Minister please tell the House how many of those 1.7 million have received the promised sum—promised by the Chancellor, not by me?
Mr Gauke
Where it is within the Chancellor’s control because the money is paid through central Government, those low-paid public sector workers will receive the £250. For those who work in local government, which is not within the control of central Government, we have provided local authorities with the funding to be able to meet that policy objective.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
My own Tory council totally ignored the Chancellor’s directive to give that money, and in the debate on the budget refused to give the £250 to our low-paid workers and said it had put in place a balanced budget that was in line with the Chancellor’s requests. What does the Minister think of that?
Mr Gauke
It is for local authorities to determine what they pay their employees, but we have given them the extra money to fund this, and we would like local authorities to fulfil the objective that we are achieving at national level. We do not control local authorities, but we can provide them with the funding, and we did that. Our intention was that all low-paid workers would receive the £250, but we do not—and should not—have the ability to mandate local authorities to pay their workers, and that is currently up to them.
John McDonnell
When the Chancellor made his statement, there were no caveats; it was a straightforward commitment to pay 1.7 million workers the £250. The Chancellor gave a moral commitment; it therefore behoves the Government to intervene to ensure the Chancellor’s pledge is fulfilled to all 1.7 million workers, without any caveats.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Minister said earlier that the Government had specifically given this money to local authorities. If we are now hearing that authorities—of all political persuasions, perhaps—such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) have not been paying it as they should, will the Government take that money back?
Mr Gauke
No. The funding settlement with local authorities was made on the basis that the money would be available for them to pay to low-paid public sector workers, but it is ultimately their decision.
Returning to the amendment of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I understand that it is intended to help enforce the Government’s policies, and I am sure he intends to be helpful. However, we do not believe that using the tax system is the right way to address this; we do not think that will be practical. It would add complexity to the tax system, and I therefore urge him to withdraw the amendment, especially as I know he will return to this subject at a later date.
Mr Gauke
I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, and I think it is time to conclude.
I have explained why the assessment of the additional rate of income tax requested by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor must be prepared by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I have explained that the analysis the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington seeks already exists, and I have explained why the Government’s approach to assisting the lowest-paid public workers is the right one. There is no need for these amendments, so I ask for them to be withdrawn.
Mr Hanson
What is clear is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has exposed completely the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised one thing at the election and one thing in his Budget, and has not delivered on that promise completely. I know that we will return to that issue during the next few weeks and months.
On the issue of the Office for Budget Responsibility, I wish to press amendment 10 to a Division and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby.
Question put, That the amendment be made.