David Gauke
Main Page: David Gauke (Independent - South West Hertfordshire)Department Debates - View all David Gauke's debates with the HM Treasury
(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Smith
It is a great pleasure to be under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle.
The legislation we deal with in this House can sometimes appear rather obscure or require a significant amount of interpretation. For financial legislation that is often true in spades, but not so with this Bill, because what do we have, straight off the bat, on page 1, in part 1, chapter 1, clause 1? A tax cut for millionaires—£40,000 for 14,000 millionaires, signed away in one short line, in subsection (2)(c), which cuts the additional top rate of tax from 50p to 45p. Let me be clear: our amendment would get rid of that provision. It would do what we as the Opposition are able to do and strike out from the Bill the change from 50p to 45p. Let there be no doubt whatever: we will be voting to remove paragraph (c) later today.
Owen Smith
But for now I look forward to the intervention that I am about to receive from the Exchequer Secretary.
Owen Smith
No; which is why I wanted to nose off on this point. Let us clear out of the way this obscurantist nonsense that we are hearing from those on the Treasury Bench—first from the Prime Minister earlier today and now from the Exchequer Secretary. He will know that protocol dictates that we cannot table an amendment that would straightforwardly put the rate back to 50p. That is what colleagues on the nationalist Benches attempted to do, and they were ruled out of order. However, what has been ruled in order by the senior Clerk responsible for this Bill is precisely what we have done, to try to get rid of the Government’s shift from 50p to 45p. The Government would then need to decide exactly what they would do with that rate, but our view is clear: it should be 50p, as it was previously. That is why we have tabled what we have tabled, on the Clerk’s advice.
Owen Smith
I will give the Minister one more chance, but I warn him that he will listen to the country, and the country is telling him that it knows where Labour stands on this issue. We are in favour of keeping the rate at 50p. The Government are getting rid of the 50p rate; the rest is complete nonsense, and smoke and mirrors. If he wants to blow some more smoke, come on up.
Mr Gauke
The country is aware that Labour did not vote against the change to the 50p rate in our debates on the Budget resolutions, although the nationalists did. It is indeed the case that there would be two income tax charges as a consequence of the amendment that the hon. Gentleman is moving. I do not want to do his job for him, but if he wanted to achieve the objective that he is setting out, he could have tried to remove subsection (2) entirely, but he did not. He has kept the charge at 20% and 40%. If his amendment succeeds, we will have those two rates of income tax next year.
Owen Smith
I am not going to indulge in this procedural nonsense much longer, because frankly the country is interested in the substance of the debate. However, if the Exchequer Secretary wants to intervene on me one more time, he can take the opportunity that the Prime Minister eschewed earlier today and correct the misleading comments that he made about the 50p rate, which he said raised no money. We know that it did raise money. We know that page 52 of the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs report makes clear how much money it raised and how much it would have raised in future. If the Exchequer Secretary wants to intervene on that point he can, but as for our amendment, drafted on the Clerk’s advice, we are confident in it, we are happy about it and we will debate the substance rather than the nonsense.
Owen Smith
I am not going to give way again to hear more obscurities of protocol. They are nonsense and are just being used to distract attention from the measures.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the academic debate. May I refer him to page 20 of the HMRC document, which relates to the IFS study? It states that Brewer, Saez and Shephard estimated a TIE of 0.46 in 2008, and Gruber and Saez estimated a TIE of between 0.5 and 0.7. It also states:
“The TIE estimate of 0.35 used in the Budget 2010… estimate”
—which the hon. Gentleman described as “standard”—
“was deliberately at the low end of the academic elasticities surveyed.”
The 0.45 TIE is much more consistent with the academic position than the claims of the last Government.
Owen Smith
I am thrilled to have given way to the Minister, because his intervention has revealed that, although he may have read the dodgy dossier, he has not read the academic literature. If he had done so, he would have read more recent publications such as that of Saez, Slemrod and Giertz, which is a review of all the pieces of work done on TIE. It concluded that many of the earlier studies, including the HMRC study, had relied on estimates that were excessively high owing to flaws in the data and the methodology used. Saez et al suggested that
“the best available estimates range from 0.12 to 0.40”.
That is the same Saez from whose earlier paper the Minister quoted. In his most recent paper, he changed his mind and concluded that between 0.12 and 0.4 was the generally accepted estimate. The Treasury has cooked the figures on the basis of one academic study produced as part of the Mirrlees review.
Mr Gauke
May I help the hon. Gentleman? The motion on which he voted against the Government related to the tax charges for 2013-14. With apologies to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), it would not have wiped out all the tax rates for this year. It was specifically for next year. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) is right. It would not have had the impact that the hon. Member for Pontypridd suggested.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful for that clarification.
The idea that the Tories would offer a tax break to millionaires would surprise nobody in my constituency—in fact, they would expect it—but that Labour would abstain after announcing it would vote against it has led to a great deal of confusion. I have had a lot of fun on the doorstep in the past few weeks explaining that, while campaigning for the local authority elections. It is similar to the way the official Opposition announced the policy of a temporary cut in VAT last June, then two weeks later abstained on the Finance Bill when I and my colleagues proposed such a measure. A lack of consistency and clarity on economic matters explains why it is so easy for the Government to continue to pin the blame on the official Opposition for the UK’s economic mess in spite of the flawed and ideological cuts programme which is destroying the fabric of the economy.
Charlie Elphicke
That is a really interesting question. In practice, it is incredibly difficult to distinguish between the person who is setting up a personal service company simply to play the system and the person who is in business and is genuinely using such a company so as not to go bankrupt. It is difficult to draw the dividing line to distinguish the husband and wife who are simply trying to play the system—that often happens—from the genuine business that is acting for true commercial purposes. It is quite invidious to separate the two.
It is better to set the rate at a level where, as the OBR would put it, the willingness of high-earning individuals is such that they regard it as slightly more socially acceptable to pay. Indeed, the OBR was not just the Exchequer’s patsy on this issue; rather, it was independent. As the OBR says on page 109 of its report, it reviewed in considerable detail what the HMRC report said about what the revenues would be, in considering whether to reduce the tax rate to 45p. It looked at the methodology used by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in the Mirrlees review, at the work of Brewer et al, while also adjusting for forestalling—a point the hon. Member for Pontypridd raised—and at the HMRC study on the underlying behavioural response. Therefore, a lot of work has been done on what exactly the position is.
It is true, of course, that things are quite uncertain. The cost to the Exchequer might not be £100 million. Indeed, students of tax history will know that when the rate originally went from 80% to 60%—a massive cut—the revenues did not fall, but rose dramatically. Did receipts fall when the tax rate was then cut from 60p to 40p? No, they rose dramatically. My understanding of the history, therefore, is that if we reduce the rate, we up the take. There is real risk and massive uncertainty. Indeed, rather than costing the Exchequer £100 million, this measure may well make the Exchequer up to about £500 million. From the history, it seems far more likely that we will have an increase in the take, which will mean improvements for our schools and hospitals, and in our ability to pay down the massive debt that the previous Government saddled us with. I therefore think this is the right policy at the right time.
Mr Gauke
As we all know, the previous Government were reluctant to take any meaningful steps to reduce the deficit. However, they could point to the imposition of an increase of more than 10% in the additional rate in three months, even though there was scepticism at the time about the projected levels of revenue. It is also worth pointing out that the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), accepted that the increase was “a temporary measure”. He recognised some of the difficulties with the policy. He accepted that the behavioural effect would steeply reduce potential revenues—the estimate at the time was that the measure would reduce revenues by two thirds. That is about £4 billion of revenue that he accepted would never materialise, owing to behavioural adjustments, such as individuals deciding to work less or not remain in the United Kingdom. He also accepted that the 50p rate would damage the UK’s international standing, giving us the highest statutory income tax rate in the G20. He also accepted, I am sure, the fact that although the measure was temporary, it would be politically difficult to reverse.
However, I have to say to the Opposition, and to the many hon. Members who have participated in this debate, that although Labour may claim to want to raise taxes on the wealthy, the reality is that the 50p rate was not succeeding in getting the money in. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the 50p rate was in place for only 36 of the 4,758 days for which the previous Labour Government were in power. When we came into office, we inherited a tax rate that we were told would damage our competitiveness, that would bring in questionable levels of revenue and that was always expected to be temporary.
Owen Smith
The Minister has repeated the line that the 50p rate was not getting the money in. What exactly does he mean by that? His own HMRC report says, in paragraph 5 on page 2, that the yield was
“around £1 billion or less”.
It does not say by how much less. Page 39 of the report states that the figure for the yield is £1.1 billion.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman cites the report; let me give him the full quote. On page 2, the summary gives the estimate that the yield from the 50p rate could be
“around £1 billion or less…and that it is quite possible that it could be negative.”
We need to compare that with the previous Government’s estimate of a yield of £2.6 billion—[Interruption.] Ah! The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) says that it was £1.3 billion in the first year. Let me explain why the figure was £1.3 billion in the first year. He is presenting that as a great triumph. Most of the money that comes in from wealthy individuals comes in through the self-assessment system, and most of the money raised from the top rate will be collected in the year after the rate is introduced. Only a certain proportion will come in through PAYE. The reason the figure was £1.3 billion in the first year was purely one of cash flow. If the hon. Gentleman is claiming that the revenue was only ever expected to be £1.3 billion, that is not a fair representation of the previous Government’s estimate, which was of a steady rate of £2.6 billion and rising.
Owen Smith
I simply want to ask the question one more time. If the yield was less than £1 billion, how much less was it? Surely the Minister knows how much the top rate got him.
Mr Gauke
The central estimate, which the OBR has confirmed, is £700 million. We are reducing the rate to 45%, and the central estimate of the cost of that is £100 million. Were we to take it down to 40%, which would be the consequence of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the central cost would be £700 million.
Mark Reckless
I think the Minister is being rather too modest. On page 21, the report states that
“most of the studies…produce TIEs”—
taxable income elasticities—
“in the range of 0.4 to 0.7”.
Let us take a central estimate of 0.55 from within that range. If we look at page 51, we see a graph that suggests that a reduction in the additional tax rate—whether to 45% as proposed by the Government, or to 40% as proposed by the Opposition—would raise £600 million. Could the Minister use some of that money to enable him to accept our amendments on child benefit?
Richard Harrington
Does the Minister agree that the Opposition are missing the point by talking about the amount that was raised by the 50p rate? The real point is the money that was not raised, owing to the disincentive that it created for people to set up businesses and to spend to create jobs and provide the growth that the country needs.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us put away some of the rhetoric that we have heard this afternoon and focus on the disagreement over the previous Government’s assessment of the behavioural impact of the 50p. Their assessment was that about 66% would be lost through behavioural impact. On the basis of the additional evidence that has emerged following the HMRC study, which is consistent with the consensus of the academic studies in this area, the estimate that the OBR has signed off is that the behavioural impact is closer to 83%. No reasonable case can possibly be made that there is no behavioural impact, yet the shadow Chancellor’s consistent argument that this is a £3 billion tax cut for the rich implies a behavioural impact of zero—miles away from any realistic case.
Mr Love
The Minister quotes research that is primarily associated with the United States rather than the United Kingdom. British research under the Mirrlees project related to events occurring 20 or 30 years ago. The reality is that there is great uncertainty in these areas; the Government’s claim that that is not the case simply ignores the reality. We can pick out whatever number we choose, but the reality is that we are losing taxable income as a result of this change.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman is right that the assessment of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, signed off by the Office for Budget Responsibility, is very similar to that of the Mirrlees review, which looked at evidence from the 1970s and the 1980s. Given that the big behavioural impact owes much to the mobility of international labour at that end of the scale—the highest earning individuals in the world are very mobile—and given that the mobility of labour has clearly increased, particularly in that sector, since the 1980s, it would appear that the hon. Gentleman is making a case to suggest that the elasticity we are using is too low, not too high, so he might like to have a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless).
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Hood. You may not be aware of it, but the media are reporting that, contrary to what was announced to the House yesterday afternoon, Abu Qatada might have been arrested by the Home Office illegally because it had not consulted the European Court of Human Rights on the last available date to—
The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)
Order. I have heard enough of the hon. Member’s contribution to give him a ruling. That is not a point of order for me. He can request that the Government make a statement to the House on the media or television report to which he refers, and if the Government agree, they can do so. As I said, it is not a point of order for me to deal with in this debate.
Mr Gauke
I do not have much time, so I would be grateful to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) if he would allow me to press on.
The Chancellor made it clear in a pragmatic way that we wish to see the evidence. HMRC conducted a review, making use of the self-assessment returns that became available in January this year. They provide the most complete source of data on high earners’ tax affairs, which only HMRC can analyse as they contain confidential taxpayer information. In this report, we have seen that the additional rate is distorted, that it is damaging to international competitiveness and that it is an economically inefficient way of raising revenue. These conclusions are based on that analysis of self-assessment data and international studies. The report finds that the behavioural response has been substantially larger than expected. The previous Government had estimated the revenue from the 50p rate to be approximately £2.5 billion each year. The HMRC analysis states that the yield would be £1 billion at best, and at worst might raise nothing at all. That is because of the much greater than anticipated behavioural effect.
We have seen huge levels of forestalling, and HMRC estimates that between a third and a half of the behavioural effect comes from genuine reductions in income through such changes as reduced hours worked or reductions in participation in the UK labour market. This suggests that total income fell by £2.9 billion and £4.4 billion as a result of the 50p rate, and that gross domestic product is between 0.2% and 0.3% lower. So this is not just a loss of tax revenue, but a loss to the economy as a whole through lower productivity and economic activity. Those are the conclusions of HMRC’s analysis.
It is very clear that the 50p rate has failed. It has been criticised by business, it has posed the risk of lasting damage to the UK economy, and it has raised considerably less for the Exchequer than expected, possibly costing rather than raising revenue.
Mark Durkan
The Minister has said that the Chancellor wants to work on an evidence basis. He has previously told us that the Chancellor wants to pursue tax avoidance. Will he therefore accept amendment 76, which focuses on ensuring that the House is given the evidence relating to both tax avoidance and the effects of the additional rate of tax?
Mr Gauke
We have a report that produces evidence. I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have made clear their determination to reduce tax avoidance, and have taken a number of steps to do just that.
Amendment 1 has created some confusion. The Opposition Members who tabled it propose that the additional rate for 2013-14 should be left out altogether. Unlike the 45p rate proposed by the Government, the higher rate of 40% would apply to income over the higher-rate threshold. I understand that Labour sources have been briefing this afternoon that the amendment deliberately leaves the top rate undecided. It does not leave it undecided; it abolishes it. The Labour party has found itself in an extraordinary position.
We have heard astonishing suggestions that we should accept the “static” argument, although, to be fair to the hon. Member for Pontypridd, he has been somewhat hesitant about simply quoting the static numbers as if they were acceptable. We must take account of the behavioural impact, and as we have seen more evidence, it has become clear that it has been greater than was anticipated.
The effect of the 50p rate has been damaging not just to the Exchequer in failing to raise the money that was anticipated, but to competitiveness. There has been a 29% increase in Britain’s—[Interruption.]
The Temporary Chairman (Mr Jim Hood)
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I cannot hear a word he is saying because of the noise made by his colleagues who are sitting on my right. I ask Members to give their own Minister some order when he is winding up a debate.
Mr Gauke
Thank you, Mr Hood.
As I was saying, there has been a 29% increase in the number of Britons given permission to work long-term in Switzerland, and the United Kingdom has become less competitive. As a result of our reforms—the additional measures that we are taking to cap charitable and other reliefs, and the measures we are taking to deal with avoidance—27% of revenue from income tax will come from the top 1%, who paid between 20% and 25% under the Labour party.
The reduction in the additional rate is understandably controversial, but we should look at the evidence, not the Opposition’s rhetoric. The 50p rate did not raise the revenues that it was intended to raise, and what money it did raise came with a cost of damage to growth and competitiveness. This is not a sustainable position, so we are reducing the rate to 45p, providing certainty and clarity for those affected. That will mean a relatively small cost to the Exchequer and a significant boost to our competitive position. As the CBI has said,
“Reducing the 50p income tax rate will send a clear signal that the UK is open for business. We must continue to encourage top talent to live and work in the UK.”
This change is good for our long-term tax revenues, it is good for our economy, and it is good for the UK as a whole. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments, and propose that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Owen Smith
Labour Members do not believe that the cut from 50p to 45p is good for the economy, and we do not think for a moment that the Minister has justified it today. Nor do we think that he has justified the claim that the rate raised practically nothing, which is what the Prime Minister, rather curiously, told the House earlier today. The Minister himself contradicted the Prime Minister in conceding that it raised perhaps £1 billion. In fact, I think the Minister definitively said £700 million whereas the Prime Minister said it raised nothing. I do not know which of them is right, but I am assuming the Minister is right.
Owen Smith
I do not think I have time to give way, as I want to press the amendment to a Division.
Nor do I think the Government have succeeded in persuading any Member of this House that it is anything other than voodoo economics to suggest that the cost of this rate change will be only £100 million. It is very likely to be closer to £3 billion than to £1 billion.
As we remain wholly unpersuaded, we shall press the amendment to a vote—
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on historic places of worship, I have been approached by people from all over the country and asked to come out against the proposal to take away the zero VAT rating on alterations to listed places of worship. Such alterations include improved access for the disabled, the installation of toilets and small kitchens, the provision of better heating and lighting and the introduction of more energy-efficient measures. They are not just for the congregation; they are for the whole community. They encourage the community use of religious buildings and make an increasing contribution to attracting tourists all over the country. These church buildings are vital, whether they be vast edifices like York Minster, of which as a York lad I am immensely proud, or small parish churches all over the country. The Government need to look again at this silly, stupid, unprecedented and unconsulted-on proposal.
Mr Gauke
We have had a thoughtful and impassioned debate this evening, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out the Government’s case for addressing some of the anomalies within the VAT system. In the time available, I will try to address as many points as possible, but I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do not take many interventions, so that I can cover as much ground as possible.
Let me begin with hot takeaway food. The current rules on the VATability of such food have been made complex and unfair by a patchwork of different legal decisions taken over the decades. The definition of hot takeaway food has been in place since 1984, and it applies to food that
“has been heated for the purposes of enabling it to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature”
and that is
“above that temperature at the time it is provided to the customer”.
There have been repeated efforts since the 1980s, however, to chip away at this boundary. A number of businesses have argued in litigation that although the food they may provide to their customers is hot and is taken away, it should not be taxed as hot takeaway food, but should instead be zero-rated. Some have argued successfully that their intention was not to provide their customers with food to be eaten hot, but that they heated their food for other reasons instead—for hygiene reasons, or to finish the cooking process, or to provide evidence of freshness, or to create an aroma or to improve appearance, crispiness or texture.
Mr Gauke
No. As I said, I am not going to give way very often.
Those arguments have not always been successful, but they have resulted in some businesses being able to secure VAT-free treatment for a range of hot products, such as hot rotisserie chickens, meat pies, pasties and panini. Other businesses, however, have continued to apply VAT to the similar hot-food products that they sell. They have accepted or the courts have ruled that their intention is to heat their food products so that their customers can eat them hot. Under the current rules, a small independent fish and chip shop will have to charge VAT on its hot chicken, but a major supermarket will argue that its rotisserie chickens are zero-rated. One baker who keeps his sausage rolls in a hot cabinet to provide his customers with a hot snack will charge tax, but the baker next door who keeps them hot and argues that the purpose is to maintain an appealing aroma will claim that they are zero-rated. The current rules mean that many customers simply do not know whether they are being charged VAT on their hot food because the treatment depends on the particular supplier’s purpose in heating the food. The new rules will ensure a level playing field, and we are removing the subjective element.
Mr Gauke
Let me make a point about the arguments surrounding ambient temperature. This test has been in place since 1984. We do not expect staff to take detailed temperature readings every time they sell a pasty. HMRC will take a pragmatic approach, and provide businesses with guidance, taking into account the responses of businesses on how to implement the change. I have to point out that existing simplification schemes are already available to allow businesses to calculate their VAT liability by reference to a fixed percentage of their turnover without requiring staff to consider the temperature of every product sold. This is a pragmatic approach, already in existence.
Mr Gauke
No, I really want to make some progress.
None of that has been changed by the Budget announcement. There is a borderline that causes confusion between repairs and alterations. The Budget decision also reflects the view that grants provide a more flexible mechanism than VAT for providing specific financial support for heritage—
Mr Leigh
This is a key point. The Government have announced that they will increase the listed places of worship grant scheme by £5 million, but they have cut it from £23 million to £7 million, so that is totally inadequate. What we want tonight is a commitment from them that they will resolve the problem. Half the ancient buildings in this land are run by the Church of England, by ordinary people who want to support their local communities. The Government must compromise on this issue.
Mr Gauke
I refer my hon. Friend to the comments that I made before his intervention.
Let me respond briefly to what was said by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). We are restricted in regard to what we can do for public transport. If we provided a reduced rate for passenger transport, we would not be able to focus it entirely on charities; it would apply more widely to taxis.
Taxing static holiday caravans and larger touring caravans will bring their treatment into line with that of other holiday accommodation. VAT is already paid on mobile caravans, camper vans, canal narrow boats and camping equipment. We therefore propose to replace the current definition of a zero-rated caravan, which is based on size, with a new definition based on whether the caravan is designed for residential use. We are considering applying British Standard 3632, and are also considering an additional test. However, I have received representations from, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) arguing against that, and we will examine those arguments closely.
Mr Gauke
I cannot, because I have only about two minutes left, but my hon. Friend has expressed his views to me very strongly.
We have heard a number of forceful and impassioned arguments this evening. The Government think it right to address anomalies in the tax system, but some of the arguments that we have heard outside the House and some of the media commentaries have not been terribly well informed, and we want a proper, informed debate and consultation. I have heard the arguments in favour of extending the consultation period and I think that that is reasonable in the circumstances, so rather than closing the period on 4 May, we will extend it to 18 May. We want people to respond to the consultation, although it is right for us to address the anomalies. For example, those with static caravans and those who run park homes or caravan sites are registered for VAT, but can recover—
Mr Graham Stuart
A two-week extension is not a large extension, but it is an extension none the less. However, the Government and the Chancellor must ensure that this is a genuine consultation. Ministers have heard what has been said tonight. They must think again, and reverse their proposal. If they say that they will do so, I shall be happy to take that at face value, but we do not want to see thousands of jobs in east Yorkshire axed as a result of this measure.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend continues to make his case very strongly. We are, of course, listening to the arguments, but we think it right to have a VAT system that deals with some of the anomalies, and that is why we have finally addressed some of the problems that have remained in our VAT system for too long.
Cathy Jamieson
At the outset of this debate there was a bit of laughing and joking, but the tone quickly changed as people realised the seriousness of the issues under discussion. The Minister’s contribution reminded me of the well-known phrase, “When you’re in a hole, you’d better stop digging”—particularly when Members on the Government Benches are looking so miserable.
I hope the Minister has listened to what has been said. In order to be helpful—and recognising that it was, perhaps, lack of attention to detail and unintended consequences, rather than malevolence, that prompted the Government to introduce these proposals, which would affect jobs and the economy—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause, but I shall press other new clauses in this group to a Division.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.