Finance (No.2) Bill

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am really disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to my speech. At what point did I bash big businesses? It was not something I said, and nor was it suggested by my tone. I have made it very clear that we supported the cuts to corporation tax in this Parliament. We are simply suggesting a switch spend—it will be in our manifesto for the next general election—which amounts to making a different choice on corporation tax in order to get practical and immediate help to smaller businesses that will make a real difference to them.

Given that the 2% of businesses that are larger have benefited by about £10 billion over the life of this Parliament as a result of a number of changes to their taxation, it is fair to switch our attention to a part of the business market that has been rather ignored. Although the Government have a number of schemes to help smaller businesses, those schemes are not going far enough or achieving the Government’s aims.

Our suggested switch spend is fair. It is not about pitting one business against another or valuing one above another. It is a simple recognition of the fact that 98% of businesses in this country have not received the practical help they need. They are desperate for change on their business rates and we will deliver it. The policy will be in our next manifesto.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

On support for small businesses, does the hon. Lady regret the fact that when her party was in office, it planned to increase the corporation tax rate for small businesses from 21% to 22%? Does she also regret the previous Government’s plans to increase employers’ national insurance contributions and fuel duty, which would have affected small businesses?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What I primarily regret is that, as a result of the choices they made, this Government choked off the economic recovery that was under way when they came to office. That is the most regrettable thing: it led to three damaging years of flatlining, and it is ordinary people who are paying the price.

Following a vocal campaign by a number of business groups, ahead of the autumn statement the Government decided not to go ahead with the planned 3.2% increase in business rates and decided instead to cap them at 2%. The Government also announced in the autumn statement that they would provide additional help to retailers. That was action—it was relatively late in the day but it was action—but it does not go far enough, and the Government’s policy does not compare favourably with ours ahead of the next general election.

Ultimately, business rates are still set to rise this month by an average of £270. The Government’s autumn statement offer of £1,000 business rate relief was welcome for retailers, but it excluded workshops and offices used by high-tech start-ups. I particularly have in mind small jewellery makers in my constituency, which is famous for the jewellery quarter at its heart. Such businesses will not benefit from the Government’s announcements in the autumn statement and, as I have said, a significant rise in business rates is still envisaged for small businesses.

Our proposal for a switch spend from corporation tax to business rates is a much more comprehensive measure that would offer genuine and more far-reaching support to small and medium-sized enterprises. Given the scale of the problem, our policy seeks to offer practical help that would truly make a difference on the Witton road, the Coventry road and the Soho road in my constituency. The Exchequer Secretary will be pleased to know that it would also make a difference in his constituency. The Office for National Statistics report “UK business: Activity, Size and Location 2013”—a great read—tells us that more than 80% of the 5,750 VAT or PAYE-based enterprises in South West Hertfordshire employ no more than four people, while almost 75% of them have a turnover of less than £250,000. They are therefore not affected by the changes to the main rate of corporation tax, which he himself oversees; they are more likely to be in properties with a rental value of £50,000, and are therefore more likely to benefit from Labour’s proposal to cut and then freeze business rates in 2015-16.

In conclusion, we believe that our policy is the right one for helping small businesses. It meets the scale of the challenge that they face on business rates, and it makes the right choice about how to pay for the policy. We will want to vote on our amendment later this afternoon to highlight the impact of this Government’s decisions and the imbalances in their approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I made exactly the same speeches when my party was in government. I demanded that the previous Government employ many more tax officers. There has been a conspiracy between Front-Bench Members for some decades to get away from being too unpleasant to the corporates and to let them have their way. Well, I do not want to let them have their way; I want them to pay their taxes so that we can pay for the things that ordinary people need, particularly those who are less well off and those who are more vulnerable.

[Mr Gauke]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments on wanting to have more HMRC staff, but surely the most important point is that HMRC’s yield should increase. Has he noted that the forecast yield over this Parliament is almost double the yield over the previous Parliament?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

That is very welcome, but I do not believe in the immutability of a certain level of tax revenue and that, whatever we do, we cannot change that level because somehow the world will not produce more than 38% of GDP in tax. It is just a question of collecting that tax and enforcing the tax rates to ensure that the big international corporates, in particular, pay their taxes. When we do that, we will see a substantial increase in revenue. Of course there are countries where overall tax revenues are substantially higher than ours, and they are not necessarily countries that are doing badly economically; they are countries that are doing well, but a higher proportion of their economy is in the public sector. Those countries have higher taxes and higher public spending, and they are civilised societies, too. The countries with the lowest levels of tax and public spending are often some of the poorest, where the gulf between rich and poor is much greater and, generally speaking, life is less pleasant, particularly for the poor and the less well off.

I look forward to more enforcement and a higher tax take by enforcing the existing tax rates and ensuring that people, particularly the corporates, pay their taxes. When it comes to taxation, the behaviour of the economy is crucial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

Value added tax has been a difficulty for a lot of individuals and for small businesses. The amendment is an opportunity for us to review these matters. If Conservative Members are right that such a change would be harmful, a review would show that. It has to be demonstrated to the small businesses of this country why a proposal of this kind is thought to be harmful to our economy.

[Mr Gauke]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark, and to respond to the first of what will no doubt be many detailed debates over the course of this year’s Finance Bill. It may be helpful if I set out a little context as to what the Government have done in terms of corporation tax.

When we came to office in 2010, the main rate of corporation tax was 28%, and the small profits rate was 21% but was due to rise, under the plans of the previous Government, to 22%. In 2010, we set out the corporate tax road map. We set out our ambition to give the UK the most competitive tax regime in the G20. We wanted a corporation tax system that would support, not hinder, growth and would boost investment to support the economic recovery, so we reversed the previous Government's planned increase in the small profits rate and cut it to 20%, and embarked on the biggest reduction in the main rate of corporation tax since the 1980s. Last week, the rate was cut to 21%. Next year it will fall to 20%— the joint lowest rate in the G20.

[Mr Love]

The Minister recounts how the corporation tax rate has moved from 28p to 22p. During that period, business investment languished. Does he accept that there is no direct connection between the level of corporation tax and business investment?

[Mr Gauke]

The cuts in corporation tax were a central plank of the Government's economic strategy, a strategy that is working. Jobs are up and business confidence is increasing.

It may be helpful if I inform the House of the news that we have heard from the IMF this afternoon. The IMF has revised the UK’s growth forecast for 2014 and 2015 to 2.9% and 2.5% respectively, an upward revision of 0.4 percentage points in 2014 and 0.3 percentage points in 2015. Those are the largest increases for both years among major advanced economies and among the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—for both years. The UK is also forecast to be the fastest-growing major advanced economy in 2014. I make the point to the hon. Gentleman that the plan is working. Business investment has grown for four consecutive quarters for the first time since 2007. The OBR has forecast that investment will grow very strongly over the next two years—by 8% in 2014 and 9.2% in 2015.

More and more businesses are moving operations here, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). Just in the past two weeks, we have seen Hitachi Rail—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales)—and Brit Insurance announcing moves to the UK. Siemens has announced a £160 million investment in the Humber. Business surveys reflect the positive impact of the corporation tax reforms. For the past two years, the UK has ranked highest in the KPMG survey of international tax competitiveness, with business leaders putting us ahead of countries such as the USA, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

[Ian Swales]

As a champion of manufacturing, I would like to see more capital investment, but does the Minister accept that investment in people has clearly been going on during this period?

[Mr Gauke]

Indeed it has. I will say more about some of the other measures we are taking to make our tax system more competitive, but overall it is clear that our tax system—in terms of being open for business—has moved in the right direction over the last four years. It is important that we maintain that momentum and do not put it at risk by trying to reverse some of the progress we have made.

[Charlie Elphicke]

According to a report in City A.M. this morning, the British Chambers of Commerce has said that we are seeing the strongest investment and export growth for nearly a century. Did my hon. Friend see that report?

[Mr Gauke]

Indeed I did, and I heard the head of the BCC make the same point in a radio interview this morning. We are moving in the right direction, and this afternoon’s figures from the IMF are extremely significant. I hope that Members in all parts of the House welcome the news that the United Kingdom is the fastest-growing major advanced economy this year.

[Mr Love]

The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that there will be no net increase in net trade, so the export-led recovery simply will not happen. It has also said that the recovery is too dependent on consumer expenditure, and that as long as real wages do not increase—and it predicts that they will not increase very fast—that simply cannot continue.

[Mr Gauke]

Again, we are seeing movement in the right direction. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced additional support for exports through the expansion of the direct lending scheme. Moreover, in 2012-13 British business received £4.3 billion of support from UK Export Finance, which was a 12-year high.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I think I am right in saying that the UK current account deficit has not been as bad as it is now since 1955, when records began. The Minister may wish to correct me, but I am certain that that is the case.

[Mr Gauke]

The Government are taking steps to ensure that we can export more. We recognise that we need to export more, and that we need more business investment. However, the way in which to ensure that that happens is not to try to avoid a competitive tax system, or to turn our back on the progress that we have made. All that would put the recovery at risk, and I fear that it is what we would get from Labour.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I do not think that the Minister has yet addressed the lack of balance in the growth that is being shown, and the concern that has been expressed about that by the IMF and others. If policies such as the reduction in corporation tax were intended to boost manufacturing and exports, I should like to know why that still does not appear to be happening to the degree that would convince people that this is a balanced recovery.

[Mr Gauke]

As a result of our corporation tax reforms, businesses are moving their headquarters here. The north-east of England, for instance, has benefited from Hitachi’s investment. However, if the hon. Lady’s point is that the job has not yet been done and that further steps are needed to make our economy more productive and competitive, I entirely agree with her. That is why we must stick to the long-term economic plan.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the Minister agree that increases in investment require consumption growth? Does he agree that the whole point of investment is to satisfy future consumption increases, and that we need both for a balanced recovery?

[Mr Gauke]

Indeed I do. As ever, my right hon. Friend brings great expertise to the debate.

Clauses 5 to 7 provide further evidence that we are continuing to make progress towards the delivery of a simpler and more competitive tax regime. They charge corporation tax for the financial year 2015. They set the small profits rate and the ring-fence small profits rate for 2014 at 20% and 19% respectively. They fix the ring-fence rates so that we need not reconfirm them every year in the Finance Bill. That is consistent with the way in which we handle the supplementary charge, the 32% tax levied on profits from oil and gas production. They set the fractions that will be used for businesses to calculate their marginal relief: the standard fraction is set at one four-hundredth, and the ring-fence fraction at eleven four-hundredths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Exchequer Secretary speaks about a positive business environment. Business rates have increased by £1,500 on average since his Government have been in power. Does he think that that has led to a positive business environment for those businesses affected?

[Mr Gauke]

It is worth pointing out that business rates have increased in line with RPI, which is exactly what the previous Government planned to do, and, indeed, exactly what the previous Government did when they were in office. What we have done, however, is double small business rate relief for every year of this Parliament, saving small businesses over £1.5 billion on their business rates bills to date. In the autumn statement we introduced the biggest business rates cut in over 20 years. This package of measures was larger than that proposed by the Opposition. Their proposal would have been worth significantly less than the £1 billion our package cost. Of that £1 billion, over 90% is going to businesses occupying small premises and targeted support is going to help the retail sector on the high street and bring empty shops back into use. The combined effect of the measures is to freeze, or even reduce, business rates bills for 35% of the smallest rate payers. This Government’s business rates measures are both more generous and better targeted than those proposed by the Opposition and benefit all businesses.

Amendment 2, tabled by the shadow Chancellor and his colleagues, proposes a review of the impact of the additional cut in corporation tax with particular reference to businesses with fewer than 50 employees. I understand from the comments made by the shadow Chief Secretary in last week’s debate that what is driving this amendment is a concern about the business environment for small businesses. The Government have done far more for small businesses than the Opposition would have done, including making it easier for small businesses to create new jobs by introducing the £2,000 employment allowance, which will benefit up to 1.25 million businesses and charities in the UK. We are lifting 450,000 small businesses out of employer national insurance contributions altogether. We have made it easier for small firms to invest and grow. We have doubled the annual investment allowance to £500,000 per year so that 99.8% of businesses will receive relief on 100% of their investment in the first year, and we have increased the small business research and development tax credit to the maximum level available under EU law. We have cut costs for small businesses by delivering the longest fuel duty freeze for 20 years and through the £7.1 billion package announced in the Budget to reduce energy costs for businesses and households.

It is worth pointing out that the rate reduction for corporation tax will lead to large firms investing more, with huge benefits for SMEs in their supply chains. Economic modelling by HMRC has shown that the corporation tax cuts introduced in this Parliament will increase long-run business investment by 2.5% to 4.5%. In today’s prices that is an extra £3.6 billion to £6 billion every year, a boost for the whole business community. As John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said last year:

“All companies will cheer the news that Corporation Tax will fall to 20% by 2015.”

This is just one element of what we have done. If Members look at what we have done on business rates, the employment allowance and energy costs, it is clear that this is a Government who are supporting business. I am afraid, however, that, as always, what we hear from the Opposition is policies that are anti-business and that will drive away investment and growth, and no realisation of how the world has changed. The UK needs to compete for jobs and investment. The best way of doing that is through a competitive tax system. I am afraid that the biggest risk to our achieving a competitive tax system and economic growth is the Labour party.

These clauses see us continue to make progress towards delivering a simpler and more competitive tax regime that supports investment, productivity and growth. I urge the House to support the clauses and to reject the Opposition amendment.

[Shabana Mahmood]

We have had a very good and interesting debate. I was a little horrified when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) began his remarks by making what sounded almost like positive comments about me, but he very quickly moved on to comments that better reflected both his politics and mine. He raised a point that I did not hear clearly, but I am sure it was a withering put-down about me not doing my homework. On his criticisms of both the amendment and what it seeks to achieve, I say to him as gently as possible that if he had done his homework, he would know that the Opposition are somewhat constrained in the amendments we can table to Finance Bills and the impact they could have on the Exchequer, so often the best way for us to get a good debate on what we seek to achieve is through asking for a review. I hope that that settles his mind as to the nature of our amendment.

There has been a great deal of discussion today about our proposals to increase the headline rate of corporation tax from 20% to 21%. We would use every penny of the revenue from that tax increase to cut business rates for small businesses in 2015 and to freeze them the year after. Nothing that Government Members have said today has shown that they understand the true impact that business rates are having on small businesses up and down the country. The Government are not prepared to make choices or spending switches to support those small businesses, but that is what the next Labour Government will do in 2015. We intend to press our amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 289.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not, because of a lack of time.

The HMRC report says that all the analysis and estimation is highly uncertain, as does the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The scale of behavioural change is ultimately decided by Ministers, and it is primarily based on an assessment of taxable income elasticity—TIE. The IFS says that there is a huge margin for error. Staying within that margin, one could easily say that, depending on the TIE, cutting the rate could cost £700 million or could raise £600 million. That gives us an idea of the range of figures that we are talking about and how uncertain the projections are.

It might have fitted the Government narrative for them to imply that they knew for certain that the 50p rate would raise only £100 million, but even on their figures and HMRC’s report, there is a huge margin for error and this is all very uncertain. That is not the only thing that was wrong with the analysis. The HMRC report was based on only one year’s worth of data—the data related to 2010-11—which is a weakness in itself. It came too early. Given the history of the introduction of the rate and the Government’s decision to cut it, the reliance on year one is a further weakness in the Government’s argument, because we know that incomes were taken earlier to avoid the 50p rate and as a result incomes in 2010 and 2011 were artificially lower, suggesting a lower yield. Hence our request for a review.

The original HMRC analysis does not give a true picture, was done too soon after the rate had been introduced and was based on only one year’s worth of data. Income figures for that year were lower than otherwise might have been the case because people brought their income forward to 2009-10 before the rate came into effect. No one has redone the analysis so we are still going on the figures from the 2012 Budget. The Government should, at the very least, update the analysis based on the more recent data and prepare the report that our amendment and new clause 4 call for. A comparison of 45p and 50p rates for those on incomes over £150,000 and £1 million would be instructive to the public debate about the top rate, especially as some Members on the Government Back Benches want to reduce the rate to 40p.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady is generous in giving way. When her party announced that it would reintroduce the 50p rate in the next Parliament, she wrote in the New Statesman:

“latest figures from the HMRC show that people earning more than £150,000 a year paid almost £10 billion more in tax”

than was taken into account in the assessment that HMRC made. Is she happy to put on record the fact that the HMRC assessment took into account the numbers that she was talking about, and that the claims that she and her colleagues made at the time of the announcement of the 50p policy were in fact wrong about that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Our analysis was based on projections that were available to us at that time, and on those projections that analysis was correct. The truth is that everyone accepts that all analysis in relation to the 50p rate—HMRC’s analysis and everyone else’s—is uncertain because we did not have the rate in place for long enough to make a full and thorough assessment. Now HMRC has available to it records for the following two years when the 50p rate was in place and it could update the report that was used for Budget 2012. That would give a much clearer picture to all of us who are relying on other figures and forecasts.

Just as people shifted income into 2009 and 2010 to avoid the 50p rate when it was introduced, once the Chancellor had said in his 2012 Budget that he would abolish it the following year in 2013, unsurprisingly people effectively decided to delay their bonuses and income until the new tax year 2013-14 began so that they could avoid paying 50p and pay 45p instead. That is what accounts for the revenue from 45p being higher, which in our earlier debates Government Members sought to rely on in support of cutting the rate further to 40p. The Government clearly reward tax avoidance at 50p with a tax cut to 45p, and their Back Benchers are now calling for 40p on the basis of revenue that they know is inflated owing to income shifting, which may well have cost the Treasury millions in lost revenue—warped priorities if ever there was a case of them.

The Chancellor is on record as saying that he considers tax avoidance to be “morally repugnant”, but as I have just said, he has rewarded a particular form of tax avoidance with a tax cut. I wonder if that has ever happened for people on middle and lower incomes. I think not. This is a Government who always tell us how proud they are of their record on tax avoidance, but I wonder how much effort they put into thinking of ways in which they could protect revenue from the 50p rate. The Government have introduced the general anti-abuse rule, the GAAR, which may have helped. They could have thought about a targeted rule. They could have looked to HMRC to do more. I understand that no specific measures are taken within HMRC to protect revenue from the 50p rate. Before rushing to abolish the rate, the Government could and should have looked at protecting revenue first. The truth is that there was no justification for giving a huge tax cut to the richest in our country. Bonuses, we now know, are up by 83% for those in the financial sector, while ordinary people are worse off now and will be worse off in 2015 compared with 2012. That certainly makes a mockery of the now not very often repeated phrase, “We are all in it together.”

I think the Government have been hoping that if they keep going on about the increase in the personal allowance, people will forget that they have made a political decision, a political choice and a political priority to cut taxes for the richest in our country. The truth is that the Government have given with one hand and taken away much more with the other. As I said, if one looks at wages, ordinary people are £1,600 a year worse off, and the combined effect of tax and benefit changes means that households will, on average, be £970 a year worse off.

This cut to the 50p rate cannot be justified at a time when the deficit is high and will not be eliminated towards the end of the next Parliament. Labour in government will increase the rate back to 50p to help us to get the deficit down in a fairer way. Just as we have said that we want the OBR to have powers to audit manifestos ahead of the next general election, because we believe that scrutiny will add to public understanding about the choices that are being made, so too we think that a review as envisaged in our amendment would help the public to understand the impact of the top rate of tax so that they can make up their own minds about who is standing up for them and other working people like them. Therefore, we will press amendment 4 to a vote.

[Mr Gauke]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Amess, to serve under your chairmanship. Before I deal with our annual debate at this stage in the Finance Bill on the 50p rate, I want to say a word or two about clause 1, which is included within the group, which ensures that income tax will be collected in 2014-15. Income tax is the Government’s biggest revenue source and the annual charge legislated in the Finance Bill is essential for its continued collection. There will be around 30 million income tax payers in the UK in 2014-15, and clause 1 states that these taxpayers will pay income tax this year at the same rates as in 2013-14. The basic and higher tax rates remain at 20% and 40% respectively, and the additional rate is 45%.

Clause 1 also means that the Government are meeting their commitment of raising the personal allowance to £10,000 one year ahead of schedule. The increase of the personal allowance to £10,000 reduces the income tax bills of another 255,000 low earners to zero and gives 25 million taxpayers an average gain of £50 in real terms. In other words, increasing the personal allowance by £560 will put an extra £112 of cash in the pockets of typical basic rate taxpayers in 2014-15.

Allow me to explain how these changes will help the Government to meet their objectives. When this Government came to office, the personal allowance was only £6,475. In 2010, everyone, including those working on the national minimum wage, had to pay income tax at the basic rate on incomes above this low threshold. Let me give an example of what this meant in practice. Someone working full-time on the October 2010 national minimum wage would have had to pay over £860 in income tax in 2010-11 alone. Thanks to this Government’s increases to the personal allowance, this year someone working full-time on the higher October 2014 national minimum wage will pay nearly £500 less than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Ministers have talked a lot about low incomes, and that is all very well, but is not the reality that the better off people are and the higher the rate of tax they are on, the more they benefit, so in fact higher-rate taxpayers benefit more than lower-rate taxpayers?

[Mr Gauke]

That is not correct, because of the way we have done this. I will not spend a lot of time on the matter, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in preparation for this speech I have seen various responses from those raising concerns about higher-rate taxpayers not benefiting from the increases in the personal allowance in the way that basic-rate taxpayers have. Indeed, those earning more than £100,000 a year do not benefit from increases in the personal allowance because it starts to be taken away.

The reality is that basic-rate taxpayers have benefited most from the measures that we have taken in increasing the personal allowance. More than 26 million taxpayers will be up to £570 better off in real terms in 2015-16 as a result of this Government’s changes. In 2014-15, basic-rate taxpayers already pay up to £700 less income tax than they would have done four years ago. By 2015-16, the Government will have cut their income tax bills by over £800 per year. Together, all the personal allowance increases since 2010 mean that this Government have cut the number of income tax payers more in five years than any Government in a similar period since records began.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister correct what may be a misunderstanding? Is it correct that 13,000 people who earned more than £1 million a year would have benefited to the tune of £100,000, on average, from the reduction in the top rate of tax?

[Mr Gauke]

Amendment 4 and new clause 4, tabled by Opposition parties, deal with familiar matters that we debate every year. They propose, once again, that within three months of passing the Finance Act, the Chancellor should publish a report reviewing the impact of setting the additional rate at 50%. In addition, amendment 4 asks for an assessment of the impact of setting the additional rate for 2014-15 at 45% and at 50% on the amount of income tax currently paid by those with taxable incomes of over £150,000 and over £1 million per year. Needless to say, such an analysis, in order to be credible, would need to take behavioural impacts into account, as did the HMRC report on the additional rate published at Budget 2012. When increasing taxes, it is not enough merely to look at theoretical income tax liabilities. Let me assure hon. Members, once more, that this Government already consider the impact of any policy decisions taken. The HMRC report on the additional rate concluded that the underlying yield from the introduction of the 50p rate was much lower than originally forecast due to large behavioural effects. It even said that it is possible that the 50p rate could have reduced income tax revenue instead of increasing it. It would be illogical and unfair to reintroduce a tax rate that is ineffective at raising revenue from high earners and that would end up making ordinary taxpayers pay more and risk damaging growth.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I genuinely thank the Minister for trying to explain that to me, but he has just described the top-end tax cut as a theoretical tax cut when my understanding is that it is a very real tax cut whereby 13,000 people who are millionaires or richer have each saved more than £100,000 per year. At this very moment, my constituency is digging deep as a result of cuts to school transport. Will the Minister confirm that the tax cut is not theoretical, but real, and that 13,000 people who are millionaires or richer have each saved to the tune of £100,000 as a result of it, when the median wage in my constituency is sub-£21,000?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me see if I can find a point of consensus with the hon. Gentleman. We want—and I suspect he wants—to ensure that the wealthiest make a fair contribution towards reducing the deficit, and the challenge for any Government is to work out the best way of doing that. Let us look at this Government’s record on raising money from the wealthiest. Budget 2010 increased the higher rate of capital gains tax and Budget 2011 tackled avoidance through disguised remuneration—a policy that was opposed by the Labour party, even though it addressed avoidance by high earners. Budget 2012 raised stamp duty on high-value homes and autumn statement 2012 took action to reduce the cost of pensions tax relief, while Budget 2013 and autumn statement 2013 announced further measures to tackle offshore evasion by high earners. In 2013-14, the richest 1% of taxpayers contributed a larger share of income tax receipts than in any other year, including every year under the Labour Government.

The point is how we raise money from the wealthiest. The 50p rate is not the most effective way of doing that, because the behavioural effects are so strong that it fails to raise money. Now that growth is finally picking up, the Government will not consider any actions that might put the UK’s recovery at risk. Despite reducing the additional rate, the richest now pay more income tax than they did in any year under Labour.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister was generously trying to find a point of consensus and I want to build on that, following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). The Minister talked about what might be raised by closing avoidance loopholes for the very richest, but what about the 13,000 honest millionaires who my hon. Friend says have benefited from a tax cut of £100,000 each? Will the Minister address that specific point and confirm that those honest millionaires—this is not about avoidance and loopholes—will each benefit from a tax cut of £100,000?

[Mr Gauke]

I suppose we are talking about the people who for almost the entire time the Labour party was in power were paying a lower rate of income tax, a lower rate of capital gains tax and a lower rate of stamp duty. I hear the Labour party’s position. [Interruption.] If we are trying to build consensus, let us look at what some Labour politicians have said. The noble Lord Myners, a former Treasury Minister, has said:

“The economic logic behind Ed Balls’s thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics,”

and that

“Ed Balls takes us back to old Labour and the politics of envy.”

Lord Jones, the former trade Minister in a Labour Government, described the policy as “lousy economics”.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

He is a Tory.

[Mr Gauke]

To be fair, Lord Jones was a Minister in a Labour Government. The Mail on Sunday has reported a key supporter of Tony Blair as saying of Labour Front Benchers:

“The trouble is they are economically illiterate and have no understanding of business or profits.”

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman gives us examples of people arguing that the policy is economically illiterate, but we are politicians, not economists. I will try to reach consensus with him by saying, although perhaps I should not, that the policy is in his party’s interests. The biggest segment of those who donate to the Conservative party—providing more than half its donations—are from financial services. To say to them, “We are all in it together. You will have to accept a little bit more pain”, would be a good political signal, let alone an economic one.

[Mr Gauke]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his political advice. I cannot but notice that he talked about wanting to uphold the values of the British people and then quoted Karl Marx—but there we go. My point is that the wealthiest are making a bigger contribution in income tax, capital gains tax and stamp duty, and that this Government are taking further action to deal with avoidance and evasion more effectively than any previous Government have done.

[Ian Swales]

It is not for me to disagree with the mathematics of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), but assuming that he is right, does his point not prove that 13,000 people were paying £100,000 less tax in the year up to April 2010?

[Mr Gauke]

I suspect that my hon. Friend may well be right, so I am grateful to him on that point.

Clause 1 will help the Government to achieve our aim of a tax system that is fair for everyone, while rewarding those who want to work hard and progress. We will achieve those goals by cutting income tax for the vast majority of income tax payers, including those in greatest need of support, while making sure that the tax system remains easy to understand. I again stress that the reports proposed in amendment 4 and new clause 4 are entirely unnecessary. The impact of reducing the additional rate of income tax has been examined in great detail. The 50p rate was ineffective and meant risking the recovery for which everyone in this country is working hard. I therefore commend clause 1 and urge the House to reject the amendment and the new clause.

[Jonathan Edwards]

We have had a very interesting debate. We heard excellent speeches from the hon. Members for Redcar (Ian Swales), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and my good friend the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), as well as from both Front Benchers.

My new clause 4 is rather harmless, if I may say so. It calls for a review that might make the case for the Government’s policy—they might want the evidence to back it up—or the case for my party’s policy of a 50p top rate. With all three Westminster parties signed up to continuing austerity, whoever wins the next Westminster election, we need transparency to ensure that the wider public are confident that everybody is paying their fair share. I regret that because the Government have not accepted my new clause, I will have to divide the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Taxation: Rebates

David Gauke Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[John McDonnell]

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax refunds were made in the tax years (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12 and (d) 2012-13 for (i) income tax, (ii) value added tax, (iii) corporation tax and (iv) national insurance; and what the total value of refunds was in each such category in each such year.

[Official Report, 31 March 2014, Vol. 578, c. 479-80W.]

Letter of correction from David Gauke:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on 31 March 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Gauke]

The figures shown represent the value of repayment figures as included in the accrued net revenue figures in the Statement of Revenue, Other Income and Expenditure which are published in the Annual Report and Accounts. We hold only the total value not number of repayments made by tax type.

[Mr Gauke]

The figures shown represent the value of repayment figures as included in the accrued net revenue figures in the Statement of Revenue, Other Income and Expenditure which are published in the Annual Report and Accounts. We hold only the total value not number of repayments made by tax type.

Anti-Avoidance Provision

David Gauke Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government are fully committed to tackling tax and national insurance avoidance and will take the necessary steps to protect the Exchequer and maintain fairness in the tax system.

We have introduced legislation which amends the agency legislation in the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978 (“the 1978 regulations”) to tackle avoidance, through false self-employment facilitated by intermediaries, of national insurance contributions (“NICs”). We have also introduced legislation, in the Finance Bill 2014, to tackle the same problem in relation to income tax.

The amendments to the 1978 regulations will come into force on 6 April 2014, as will the legislation relating to income tax (Budget Resolution No. 11, recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for 25 March 2014).

The income tax legislation is supported by a targeted anti-avoidance rule (“TAAR”) which is intended to ensure that those workers who would be employees, but for the imposition of artificially constructed intermediary arrangements, are treated as employees for the purposes of tax.

I am today announcing that we intend to introduce a TAAR for NICs, with retrospective effect to 6 April 2014, at the next available legislative opportunity. This will support the 1978 regulations and ensure that those workers who would be employed earners but for the imposition of artificially constructed intermediary arrangements are also treated as employed earners for the purposes of NICs.

The TAAR for NICs will follow the TAAR for income tax, details of which can be found at clause 6, section 46A of the Finance Bill 2014 which was introduced into the House of Commons on 27 March 2014.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, not least because the shortfall in the amount the Treasury said it would raise from the levy has been so much larger than £800 million. I think he needs to speak with Ministers. If he disagrees with £2.5 billion, he needs to tell them now. The Exchequer Secretary is in the Chamber, because he is the one—unbelievably—who was responsible for designing the bank levy. He must be massively embarrassed by its total failure. Why has it raised so little? How does he explain the shortfall? I will give way to him if he wishes to offer an explanation.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

indicated dissent.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure finally to be able to wind up this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had an interesting debate and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to the naive populism and flagrant opportunism of the Opposition, and we have seen further evidence of that during the debate. He welcomed the fact that this was not a giveaway Budget but one of a Government who are sticking to the plan.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about the DOTAS policy and the way in which those in disputes are being asked to pay their tax before the matter is finally determined. It is worth pointing out that that will apply only when a DOTAS notification has been made or, in future, when the case relates to a general anti-abuse rule and HMRC believes there to be a dispute. None the less, final rights will be determined by the courts.

My hon. Friend also raised a concern about film finance. It is worth pointing out that the problems are a result of the first scheme introduced by the previous Government. The current film finance regime does not have the same difficulties as its predecessor.

The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) welcomed the policy on the annual investment allowance. It is often observed that Opposition Members run down the state of the economy and what is happening in their location, but I make no such complaint about the hon. Lady. She pointed out that more people are employed by Nissan than ever before and that there is much good news about Nissan and other companies in the north-east. I welcome her positive comments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) raised a number of points. He highlighted the need for those who access their pensions to be able to receive appropriate advice. I reassure him that there will be free, impartial and, where wanted, face-to-face advice. He talked about wanting to create a business culture, and I agree with him about that. He also mentioned the new universal technical college in Watford, which I particularly welcome: it will help his constituents and, indeed, mine.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) raised a number of points, including the issue of energy prices. In one sentence he said that prices are continuing to rise, but he then said that an energy provider has announced a price freeze. He claimed credit on behalf of the previous Government for cutting corporation tax, but now thinks we should increase corporation tax. He also disappointed the House by saying that he will not be serving on the Finance Bill Committee this year. Only now am I overcoming my dismay at that news.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) said that this Budget was another step in clearing up the mess we inherited. He highlighted this Government’s efforts and successes on tax avoidance. He raised concerns about how Labour’s policies on energy prices are spooking investors. He said that Labour is the anti-business party and highlighted the help in the Budget and this Bill for the manufacturing industry.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made a speech in which, essentially, she tried to refight the 2010 general election. We certainly welcome that approach, because the Labour party got less than 30% of the vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) took up that battle and made the case against the previous Labour Government. He also highlighted the vacuity of Labour’s current policies. At one point, he sounded very much like Len McCluskey.

I apologise for missing the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), but I understand that he referred to the sunlit uplands of a Labour Government next year. I do not know whether that was an April fool’s joke. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) highlighted the positive mood among businesses in his constituency and welcomed the changes to air passenger duty. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) had concerns about pensioners being able to spend their money wisely and was against raising the personal allowance. He will have the opportunity to vote against both policies this evening.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) delivered a characteristically erudite speech. He highlighted the fact that today is the anniversary of the death of Eleanor of Aquitaine, a mother of two sons who were deadly political rivals—the Marion Miliband of her age. My hon. Friend concluded his speech by saying that we should rejoice at the Budget. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) then spoke and I think the best summary of her speech would be to say that she did not rejoice at the Budget—I think I will leave it at that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) highlighted the very supportive feedback about the Budget measures that he has received from chambers of commerce in the north-east of England. He also highlighted the benefits of our reforms of APD.

The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) set out his opposition to spending cuts, although he did not provide any suggestions about how the deficit could be reduced. I hope that he will serve on the Bill Committee this year—he nods his head—which to some extent makes up for the disappointing news about the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) supported our policy on pensions and the recognition, through transferable allowances, of marriage in the tax system. He raised the issue of ensuring that employment is high, particularly to help young people. Although this was announced in a previous financial statement, it is worth pointing out that employer’s national insurance contributions will no longer be paid for employing under-21s from 2015, which will help to deal with youth unemployment. We are of course introducing the employment allowance—the £2,000 cash-back—for businesses, which will also help.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Will the Exchequer Secretary take the opportunity to do what none of his colleagues in the Treasury team has done? In particular, the Chief Secretary refused to answer this question in debates on the Budget. When all is said and done, will people be better off or worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010? It is a straight question—a straight answer, please.

[Mr Gauke]

The Labour party presided over the greatest recession that this country has seen for more than a century, which had an impact on people’s living standards. It is now up to this party and this coalition Government—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Surely the House wants to listen to the Minister. A little quieter.

[Mr Gauke]

After the mess we inherited, how do we ensure that we build up the economy and get the sustainable growth that will increase living standards? The answer is set out in this Finance Bill.

It is worth pointing out the measures in the Bill that the Labour party will vote against this evening. There is the annual investment allowance, which will help manufacturing and other businesses up and down the country. It means that nearly 5 million businesses will get 100% relief on capital expenditure. That was welcomed by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South. Labour Members will vote against that. There are the reforms to R and D tax credits, which will help businesses to start up. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am not going to ask any more polite questions. The House must listen to the Minister. Stop talking among yourselves.

[Mr Gauke]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Labour Members will oppose the R and D tax credit. There are the reforms to the carbon price floor, which will help manufacturing industry and ensure that the UK is not uncompetitive. They will vote against that, against the interests of businesses in their constituencies.

On the issue of pensions flexibility, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), said that the debate following the Budget was diverted by the attention on annuities, but it is fair to say that the Leader of the Opposition was not diverted by annuities in his response to the Budget. Since then, we have seen confusion from the Labour party. Labour Members have said that they are worried that people will spend recklessly and that that will create a burden on the public finances. They should know something about that, but they should not judge other people by their standards. The truth is that the Labour party does not trust the public with their money and that that feeling is mutual.

On the subject of avoidance, the Bill’s measures mean that £9 billion in additional revenue will be collected over the next five years. Avoidance will be tackled as a consequence of the Bill. It is also worth pointing out that HMRC’s yield over the course of this Parliament will be almost double its yield over the course of the previous Parliament. That is the progress that we have made on tax avoidance and evasion.

We are helping with the cost of living. There are hon. Members, including on the Opposition Benches, who have long campaigned for their constituents who have relatives in the Caribbean or south Asia. We are helping with air passenger duty, but Opposition Members will be voting against that measure.

On the starting rate of income tax for savers, we are cutting a 10p rate, not doubling a 10p rate. That will mean that 1 million more people will no longer pay tax on their savings. Opposition Members will be voting against that.

The personal allowance will increase to £10,000 this year and £10,500 next year. Opposition Members will be voting against that. Were they to succeed, the personal allowance in 2015-16 would be not £10,500, but £9,880. That would mean that millions of people would pay £124 a year more in tax as a consequence of the way that Labour votes.

[Mr Newmark]

Does my hon. Friend agree that raising the personal allowance to £10,500 will take 3.2 million people out of tax altogether and help 26 million families with an extra £800 per annum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Labour party succeeds tonight, those 26 million people will pay £124 more in income tax next year.

This is a Finance Bill that gives people more power over their own lives, a Finance Bill that helps businesses to invest and create jobs, and a Finance Bill that reduces the burden of taxation on millions of income tax payers. In addition to our progress in improving skills, reforming welfare and strengthening our infrastructure, this Bill will help us to build a more resilient economy. This Bill is a further example of the Government working through our long-term economic plan and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Double Taxation Convention (Germany)

David Gauke Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

A protocol to the double taxation convention with Germany was signed on 17 March 2014. The text of the protocol has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

Fair Tax Mark

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate. As she said, she has a long-standing interest in the issue of tax transparency. She set out her case clearly, and I welcome her contribution. Before I speak about the fair tax mark, I will provide some context about wider Government policy on tax levels and tax avoidance.

A key priority for the Government is to ensure that the UK boasts a competitive and fair tax system so businesses can flourish, but we also want to stamp down on avoidance. We have reduced the main rate of corporation tax from 28% to 21% from next month, and it will go down to 20% next year. We have introduced a single rate for all companies, small and large, and the lowest corporation tax rate of any G8 company and the joint lowest rate in the G20. We have introduced the patent box; the seed enterprise investment scheme, which helps new businesses starting up in the UK with equity finance; and substantial new tax reliefs aimed at the creative and high-tech industries. Taken together, those steps encourage businesses to invest, innovate and create employment in the UK.

We want to offer competitive tax rates to ensure that companies locate jobs, invest and expand in the United Kingdom, but we are also determined to deal with tax evasion and contrived tax avoidance schemes, so individuals or businesses are not able to gain an unfair advantage. It is sometimes argued that the objectives of ensuring competitiveness and dealing with avoidance and evasion are contradictory. I do not accept that. I believe that it is possible to create a tax system that is attractive to businesses, ensures that tax law is not exploited in ways that Parliament does not want and is properly enforced. To that end, the Government are investing almost £1 billion in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in this Parliament to clamp down on avoidance and evasion. We are also giving HMRC new legal powers to tackle tax evaders and the promoters and users of tax avoidance schemes. The amount of money that HMRC obtains from taxpayers as a consequence of the actions it has taken has increased to record levels and is substantially higher than the levels we inherited in 2010. We have made great progress in dealing with tax avoidance and evasion.

It is not surprising that, as the hon. Lady said, public concern and interest in this issue has never been so strong. We are addressing the challenges of our large deficit, and bringing it down requires tough decisions. The public rightly expect the Government to be vigilant and ensure that everybody pays the share of tax that is required under law and that nobody abuses the system that is designed to ensure that everybody makes a fair contribution.

As the hon. Lady said, it is right to say that the issue of tax—corporation tax, in particular—should not be looked at solely as a domestic issue. There is international concern about tax transparency, and we are working closely with our international partners. Our goal is simple: we want to reform the international tax system so companies pay the tax that is due where it is due. It is right and fair that they pay tax in the jurisdiction in which their economic activity occurs. Last year, the United Kingdom used our presidency of the G8 to focus on improving transparency by proposing a new tool to require multinationals to report to tax authorities on where they make their profits and pay their taxes around the world. We also proposed a tool for securing more extensive information exchanges to tackle tax havens and pierce through the corporate veil. On top of that, the Prime Minister announced last autumn that the Government will establish a publicly accessible registry of company beneficial ownership.

Transparency is vital to tackle a range of illicit finance threats and to discourage tax evasion by removing the secrecy that enables businesses and some individuals to hide information from HMRC. As the Prime Minister said,

“We need to know who really owns and controls our companies.”

Therefore, the hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of transparency.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the Minister for his full answer, but will he focus on the EU accounting directive? He said that the Government want greater transparency, and he implied that they are in favour of country-by-country reporting, which is positive. However, the message we are hearing is that the UK has not supported the EU accounting directive.

[Mr Gauke]

I will make three points. First, the UK believes that there is a need for greater transparency. There have been discussions about that issue in the G8, in particular about the UK Government’s proposal that companies should provide information about where their activity takes place and where they pay tax.

I will not digress for long on this point, Mr Howarth, but a year or so ago I had a meeting at Euston tower with the HMRC officials who deal with transfer pricing matters. They said it would help them to have a relatively simple form to provide information about the companies into which they enquire so they know where those companies make their profits and where they pay tax. The officials said it would help them to have high-level information that could tell them, for example, that a high proportion of profits were being transferred to a low-tax jurisdiction. They said that type of information would enable them to assess risks and determine where to put their resources. That conversation and others resulted in our proposal for the high-level tool.

Secondly, we want to ensure that we have the information that can help HMRC to make risk assessments and know where to focus its efforts. However, we want to do so without in any way compromising our desire not to impose unnecessary burdens on businesses and not to create a whole lot of bureaucracy that does not necessarily help tax authorities much.

The hon. Lady may not have much sympathy with our third point, but the long-standing position of the UK Government—under all parties—is that tax is principally a matter for member states. We have concerns about a tax measure being included in a non-tax directive, thereby undermining the competency of member states in direct tax matters.

I hope that I have provided some context for our thinking on the matter. Nevertheless, I want to underline the point that that does not diminish the fact that the UK is leading the way in ensuring that the right kind of information is provided to tax authorities to enable them to assess a company, how aggressive it is in its tax planning, how much it is putting into low-tax jurisdictions and how much it is putting into mainstream jurisdictions.

Let me turn to the subject of the debate, namely the fair tax mark, although I appreciate that we are having a wider discussion. I welcome any contribution that informs and progresses the debate about transparency and a better understanding of the taxes paid by companies. We welcome any business moving to improve the transparency of its own tax affairs. Indeed, as a Minister I have made the point for at least three years that companies must do more to explain the tax that they pay and some of the complexities of their situation, which can be lost in a febrile public debate. They must be much more open and transparent in explaining their arrangements, because it would be to the benefit of all companies if people understood such matters better. Often, companies’ silence leads to suspicion, whether well-founded or not.

The specific proposal for a fair tax mark is a new initiative—let us see how it works. I generally welcome anything that progresses the debate. If such an initiative is to work effectively, clear and objective criteria must be in place and must be applied fairly and objectively by informed and credible experts who are well respected by business and the wider public. There must also be a governance structure that addresses any concerns about conflicts of interest and ensures independence. If the fair tax mark can meet those tests, it will be a particularly valuable contribution to the debate.

Of course, HMRC’s role is different. It must collect the tax that is owed under the law, help businesses to understand their obligations and make them aware of reliefs to which they are entitled and, of course, pursue relentlessly the minority who bend or break the rules. HMRC is also leading the way in improving transparency by opening up its own processes to greater public scrutiny, both to restore public confidence and to demonstrate to the public that it does not settle disputes with any taxpayers otherwise than in accordance with the law. We welcome efforts by businesses to improve the transparency of their affairs, and I see the fair tax mark as part of that debate.

As time permits, I would like to say a little about country-by-country reporting. The hon. Lady pointed out that the international base erosion and profit shifting process—the BEPS project—is under way. I very much welcome the development of a standardised country-by-country reporting template, a proposal that the UK initiated under our G8 presidency last year. The template will help tax administrations with their risk assessment, provided that it is focused on useful information that will show, at a high level, where businesses are making their profits and paying their taxes around the world. That will give tax authorities, including those of developing countries, a new tool to help them to identify and assess risks efficiently. I would emphasise that, although the UK supports the OECD’s work on the template, we remain mindful of the need to balance that against the need not to disproportionately increase the compliance burden on business.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he is being very generous. I feel that there is a gap between the strong words of welcome he gives to the idea of greater transparency and the actual actions he is prepared to see taken to follow them up. To return to the EU accounting directive for a moment, the issue is simply one of transparency. He says that the Government are not in favour of it because it brings tax matters under a non-tax regulation, but it is about transparency, which is cross-cutting.

Similarly, the Minister says, for example, that the Government would welcome contracts not being awarded to companies that aggressively avoid paying tax. Will he tell me about any concrete action that the Government are going to take to follow that up? We can either change EU laws or work with other countries to make it possible for that to be operational.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I do not want to repeat myself on the EU accounting directive, but we believe that we must protect the broad principle that tax matters are for member states. There has been action at the EU level on banking and extractives, which we recognise and support, but we are sensitive to any creep of powers in this area. I am not at all embarrassed to make that point. We must also find a way to ensure that we get the information that tax authorities need without imposing unmanageable burdens on businesses.

On procurement, it is worth pointing out that we are the Government who have brought in new rules where none were in place before. The new rules will come into effect on 1 April and require all suppliers to declare tax non-compliance. Departments will have the ability to terminate a contract on the basis of such a declaration, if they so wish. From the hon. Lady’s perspective, that should be welcomed, and the Government deserve credit.

Returning to country-by-country reporting, I repeat that although we support the OECD’s work on the template, on which we very much led the way, we remain mindful of the need to balance that against the requirement not to increase disproportionately the compliance burden on business. My officials have worked extensively with business and representative bodies over the past four months to understand the compliance impact of country-by-country reporting and the practicalities of collecting information. I am pleased to see that the OECD work is on track to deliver the September 2014 deadline. I would like to thank business, civil society and the advisory community for their input to date. Work will continue in consultation and discussions with the OECD over the coming months.

The Government want a tax system that is good for jobs, good for growth and good for our economy. I believe that we have taken steps towards achieving all those goals, and I have been grateful for the opportunity to explain why. I would like to underline the fact that we believe businesses should pay the tax that is due. We have been involved in international reforms through the OECD work and been instrumental in encouraging a climate of greater transparency. We continue to welcome the debate.

Double Taxation Convention (UK/Belgium)

David Gauke Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

A second protocol to the double taxation convention with Belgium was signed on 13 March 2014. The text of the protocol has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What plans he has to enhance the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The OBR has a broad remit, set out in the charter for budget responsibility, to examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances. Autumn statement 2013 announced that over the course of 2014 the OBR will be initiating an external review of its core publications. Following the outcome of the review, the Government will hold their own review of the OBR at the start of the next Parliament.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but as the Chief Secretary’s own leadership manoeuvres now require him to suggest a different policy from his Conservative colleagues in government, and after more spurious and out-of-touch attacks by the self-styled Bromsgrove bully boy, please will he explain precisely why he objects to the OBR undertaking an audit of all party manifestos prior to the election?

[Mr Gauke]

I might refer the hon. Gentleman to what his colleague the noble Lord Eatwell said when this matter was debated in the House of Lords on 8 November 2010. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] Labour Members are saying, “Who?” He is actually the Labour spokesman in the House of Lords. Lord Eatwell said:

“we on this side agree…to confine the activities of the OBR to consideration of the impact of government policies alone. I am sure it is right that the OBR should not become embroiled in political controversy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2010; Vol. 722, c. 16-17.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The question was about help for those who earn below the income tax threshold. It is worth pointing out that 2.7 million people who earn below the current income tax threshold would be above the threshold but for the actions of this Government to raise the personal allowance. Those in work who do not pay income tax have benefited from, for example, frozen fuel duty and council tax, and reduced energy bills. The Government are also introducing universal credit to ensure that work always pays.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am not sure that the 17% of employees—4.6 million people—who are already under the income tax threshold will be impressed by the main policy being to increase the threshold yet again. The problem for these people is that the tax cuts that have taken place already have been more than wiped out by reductions in working tax credits and child tax credits. What targeted help will the Government give to such people, such as extended free child care or serious work on earnings thresholds being increased?

[Mr Gauke]

I have to remind the hon. Lady of the state of the public finances when we came to office and the very difficult circumstances that we face. The fact that 2.7 million people have been taken out of income tax as a consequence of our policies shows the emphasis by the coalition Government on supporting those in low-paid work.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The Minister is absolutely right about the commitment of our Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues in increasing the tax threshold. What consideration has my hon. Friend given to looking similarly to national insurance contributions?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have to look across the board, and what we see is a Government who, in difficult circumstances, while taking difficult decisions to reduce the deficit, have made every effort to ensure that work pays. I am sure that we will continue to do so.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

12. What comparative assessment he has made of trends in the annual rates of inflation and growth in average earnings since May 2010.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The fall in living standards is a consequence of the economic crisis. In its latest forecast, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects real earnings to rise in 2014 and growth to strengthen in every year of the forecast. The only way to raise living standards is to stick to our long-term economic plan and to deliver a recovery that works for all.

[Mr Cunningham]

Despite this Government’s policies making the economic situation worse, the hard work of the skilled labour force and small businesses has started to lift the economy. Is the Minister aware that in the west midlands GDP per capita is 18% below the UK average and wages are well below the national average? Real wages fell by 5% from 2010 to 2013; wages are not rising and people in the west midlands are struggling to make ends meet. What are the Government doing about that? They should stop blaming the previous Government because it is their policies that caused this in the first place.

[Mr Gauke]

The reality is that the west midlands, as with other parts of the country, is growing strongly. Today’s figures show that manufacturing has grown by 3.3% over the past year, and that is particularly important for the west midlands. The reality is that we are moving into a period of growth, and that is encouraging. Further work needs to be done, but the truth is that this Government have succeeded in turning around the mess that we inherited.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

13. What discussions he has had with energy-intensive industries on measures to be included in the 2014 Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

T7. A few weeks ago, I joined my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) in presenting to the Chancellor a Boost Bingo petition with over 300,000 signatures, calling for a cut in bingo duty. [Hon. Members: “House!”] Will the Minister give to those who, day in, day out, enjoy bingo—including those who like to shout “House!”—comfort from this House that their concerns are being addressed in the forthcoming Budget?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

At this point in the year, all I can say to my hon. Friend is, “Let me take that as a further Budget submission.”

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Chief Secretary agree that to have a successful financial services sector we must have bankers, lawyers and accountants whom everyone trusts, and that we need a new value system of trust in these institutions? If so, will he have a careful look at the behaviour of Grant Thornton and the way in which it treats clients and businesses in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I am sure that Members of this House will welcome the overwhelming support in the European Parliament this morning in voting in favour of open public registers of company beneficial ownership and voting against exempting trusts from public disclosure. Will the Minister apply pressure to his colleagues to ensure that the Council adopts the same rigorous position as Members of the European Parliament?

[Mr Gauke]

We will look at that proposal. There is a need to ensure that systems that apply across the European Union have a proper understanding of how trusts work in the UK and some of the challenges that exist. Trusts are not companies, and there are more difficulties in dealing with them than there are in dealing with a public register for companies.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The banks keep telling us that they are lending more to small business, but the reality on the ground seems to be very different. In particular, what are this Government doing about the excessive level of charges, which means that even when loans are available they are often not taken up?

Farmers Markets

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on securing this debate and putting his case so eloquently. I am sure he will appreciate that it is difficult for me to comment on the tax affairs of any specific community interest company, but I will do my best to provide answers on some of the general points that he has made.

It seems likely that the dormant status of the particular farmers markets in which the hon. Gentleman has expressed an interest has simply been subject to the usual periodic review that HMRC undertakes for all dormant companies. There has been no recent change of Government policy in respect of the taxation of CICs. As hon. Members may be aware, CICs were specifically designed to provide a legal framework and a brand identity for social enterprises that operate for the benefit of their community. As such, they provide an alternative to setting up a charity. Indeed, the major attraction of such companies is that they can be set up and operated in a manner significantly less regulated and more commercially focused than charities. The use of a CIC also ensures that the assets of the company are locked away for a public benefit purpose. Indeed, he touched on the differences between the regulation of charities and of CICs.

It is important to note that, unlike charities, CICs are not not-for-profit organisations. They do aim to make a profit, which can be distributed to the company’s owners or shareholders, or may be used to benefit the community. For that reason CICs are liable to corporation tax in the normal way. That is entirely consistent with the Government’s long-standing level playing field policy, whereby profits that arise from trading activity are subject to corporation tax, regardless of the nature of the entity undertaking the activity.

[Jim Shannon]

The thrust of what has been put forward for consideration relates to the difference between the taxes paid by a company and those paid by organisations such as the one that has been mentioned, which plough money back into the local community. Does the Minister not feel, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and I do, that their situation is different? If the community is being regenerated, with opportunity and confidence created, is that not sufficient reason for doing away with the corporation tax because of the benefits that come to the community, which may lead to more jobs and other people paying tax?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me just elaborate on the point I was making and the reason we have a level playing field approach in this area. For example, a farmers market could operate in competition with other local businesses, and should not be given a competitive advantage over those other businesses purely by reason of being a CIC. A different regime is in place for charities, although one must bear in mind what applies in terms of trading there. CICs are under a different regulatory regime. They are, and have always been, chargeable to corporation tax on any trading profits, investment income or capital gains, but they are also able to take advantage of any corporation tax reliefs that are available.

HMRC treats some entities as dormant for corporation tax purposes when they are in fact active, but they must meet specific criteria to do so—for example, where a particular type of organisation has a corporation tax liability of £100 or lower. Rather than that being an exemption from the tax, this is an administrative issue based on a consideration of the costs that would be incurred through processing returns and collecting payments for such small amounts of tax.

As a general rule, a community interest company is unlikely to meet the specific criteria to be deemed to be dormant, but if the criteria were met, as appears to have been the case in the example given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, HMRC would then review the matter periodically and decide whether to continue to treat the company as dormant or whether the company should start submitting tax returns. It should also be noted that the company itself is obliged to tell HMRC if its situation changes such that it is no longer within the criteria to be treated as dormant.

HMRC’s administrative discretion to depart from the strict statutory position is extremely limited. What we are talking about here, as far as I can tell, is essentially that a periodic review having been undertaken, an assessment was made that the farmers markets in question were liable to corporation tax. Although I accept the point that the great bulk of the tax gap that HMRC seeks to address will not be found from dealing with dormant companies or CICs, none the less it is appropriate that HMRC properly enforces the law, which we in Parliament have made, and ensures that companies or CICs are not treated as dormant when in fact they are not.

[Richard Burden]

I am following what the Minister is saying. Clearly, the badge of “dormant” should not just be seen as a flag of convenience to be used at any time. If I am reading him right, is he saying that there could be some flexibility in the definition of what is dormant? The judgment about what is and is not dormant is an administrative matter rather than something that is laid down by regulation or statute. Therefore, HMRC would have the potential to exercise some discretion.

[Mr Gauke]

Where a company or a CIC is active, there are very limited circumstances in which HMRC would treat that entity as dormant. Specific criteria must apply, and as I say, it is unlikely that a CIC would meet those criteria. HMRC’s administrative discretion to depart from the strict statutory position is extremely limited. It is not within HMRC’s powers to treat all CICs as exempt from tax, as the law is quite clear that CICs are chargeable to corporation tax.

I should make a broader point. The hon. Gentleman asks whether this is a question of priorities, what the position would be with large companies and so on. We could have a much lengthier debate on that subject alone. However, during this Parliament, HMRC has collected £23 billion from larger businesses as a consequence of its compliance activity. That is significantly up on the record of previous years and demonstrates a determination by HMRC to address compliance by large companies. I do not want to be over-deflected to this, but many larger company issues relate to how international tax laws work. The UK continues to lead the way in encouraging the OECD and the G7, the G8 and the G20 to focus on that work internationally.

To return to CICs, I should like to take this opportunity to reaffirm that the Government are committed to encouraging social enterprise. A social investment road map was published at the beginning of the year and set out the Government’s plans to encourage people to invest in social enterprises, including CICs, particularly with the introduction of a social investment tax relief.

I assume that the farmers markets to which the hon. Gentleman refers will benefit from the employment allowance if they have employees. If they do not have employees but pay business rates, they will benefit from the policies announced in the autumn statement in that respect.

I am sorry if I have not provided the hon. Gentleman with the answers that he hoped for, but I hope that I have provided him with a little more clarity on the issue. Although it is difficult to talk about individual cases given taxpayer confidentiality, I hope that I have clearly set out the position in respect of CICs.

Question put and agreed to.

HMRC Inquiry Centre Closures

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery]

I will certainly come to that later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.

I am fairly positive that the Minister—perhaps he can indicate that this is the case—met PCS representatives this morning.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

indicated assent.

[Ian Lavery]

The Minister nods positively. I am pleased: perhaps he can assure me that support will be given to staff who are uncertain about their future and that compulsory redundancies will not be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on securing this debate and putting across his points with characteristic clarity and force. Although I can understand his and other Members’ concerns about the new HMRC service, particularly the plans to close its network of inquiry centres, I hope to provide reassurance that the changes will in fact provide better support to customers who require extra help to get their taxes and payments right. I want to focus on three areas: the impact on HMRC staff, whether there will be continued provision of face-to-face service and what the changes will really mean for those who currently use the inquiry centres.

First, let me begin, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck did, with the impact of the proposals on existing HMRC staff. Members will be aware that HMRC has recently written to all MPs about the introduction of the new service. That letter includes confirmation, which I would like to stress again today, that the plans are no reflection on the dedication and commitment of the 1,300 staff working in the inquiry centres. It is simply the case that HMRC can better support customers if it uses its money and staff in other ways.

Since the original consultation on the proposed new service began last year, HMRC has been discussing the impact of the changes with staff in inquiry centres and trade unions. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck pointed out, I met PCS representatives this morning to discuss the changes. Staff have been advised of the options and support available to them, dependent on their personal circumstances. The options include opportunities to apply for one of 450 roles in the new service.

A voluntary exit scheme has been opened for inquiry centre staff who wish to leave the Department on favourable terms, and HMRC has good reason to expect that a significant number will take the option to leave and pursue their futures elsewhere. HMRC will also, of course, do everything possible to redeploy as many staff as possible within HMRC or to help them to find other roles within the civil service. For those who go into the redeployment pool, the offer of a one-to-one meeting is still in place—it has certainly not been withdrawn.

It is worth bearing in mind HMRC’s history as an employer. It has reduced in size significantly over the past nine years, but there have been only 35 compulsory redundancies. Although I cannot provide any guarantees that there will be no such redundancies, HMRC’s record in avoiding such eventualities is strong.

Secondly, I would like to address the concerns of those who have suggested that the closure of the inquiry centres marks the end of HMRC’s dedicated face-to-face advisory service. Let me reassure them that that is definitely not the case. A face-to-face service is about people; it is not about bricks and mortar. What is important is that HMRC provides an accessible and flexible face-to-face service that meets the needs of customers. Such a service is at the heart of the new system, which will provide face-to-face meetings where that is most convenient to customers. Today’s customers increasingly want to access services online, by phone and face to face when they need them. That is what the new service will focus on providing.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just arrived.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I apologise for being late; I have been tied up in a Committee. The Minister mentions the responsibility to maintain customer services. Does he feel that it is sufficient merely to put posters in the windows of the offices that have closed? Is that sufficient notice to give the public, particularly when the feedback from the pilots was that that was not an effective method of communicating with the public?

[Mr Gauke]

It is important that HMRC communicates the closure of inquiry centres. It has written to all Members of Parliament on the matter and will take other steps to ensure that our constituents are aware of the changes.

Inquiry centres are not universally distributed across the country, and large parts of the UK are not even served by them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who is no longer in his place, raised the position of rural areas. Rural areas do not tend to be well served by inquiry centres at present. There has been a sharp decline in the use of inquiry centres. Visitor numbers have halved from more than 5 million in 2005-06 to just over 2 million in 2012-13, and the number of face-to-face appointments also dropped by four fifths to 140,000 last year.

[Ian Lavery]

Is it not the case that individuals who wish to have a face-to-face meeting will be vetted on the telephone, and then someone will adjudicate whether they need one?

[Mr Gauke]

I will turn to how the new service will work in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. HMRC’s in-depth research further revealed that nine out of 10 of those who visited an inquiry centre last year did not require a face-to-face appointment and would have been able to resolve their queries through a phone call or by visiting the HMRC website.

[Ian Lavery]

On that point, will the Minister give way again?

[Mr Gauke]

I am keen to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will give way.

[Ian Lavery]

Where on earth did that information come from? Surely, people who wanted a face-to-face meeting had one and thought it beneficial. Where do the statistics that the Minister has just mentioned come from?

[Mr Gauke]

They are the result of research undertaken by HMRC. Matters can often be resolved over the telephone rather than in a face-to-face meeting. The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted a case in which an 85-year-old gentleman caught two buses to attend an inquiry centre. If it is possible to drive that service more easily over the telephone, so be it, but there are circumstances in which a face-to-face meeting will be appropriate, so that will be provided.

HMRC’s research has highlighted that up to 1.5 million customers need extra help with their tax and benefits affairs. Many of them need help only for a specific event in their lives, such as when they approach retirement. Others may have low literacy skills, or a mental health condition may make it difficult for them to cope with their affairs. The new, more accessible service will be tailored to the needs of customers who require extra help. Specialist help will be provided over the telephone by extra support advisers who have the time, skills, knowledge and empathy to handle customers’ inquiries at a pace that suits them, and who can identify when a customer needs extra help. If a customer’s query cannot be dealt with over the phone, they can arrange a face-to-face meeting with a team of mobile advisers based across the United Kingdom. Such meetings can be arranged at a time and place convenient to the customer, and extra help will be delivered through HMRC’s voluntary and community sector partners who have been provided with extra funding so that they can support more customers and refer them directly to the new service.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Minister says that the service will be more accessible, but can he guarantee that? More than 280 offices will be closed. It is very difficult for the ordinary man and woman in the street to see how the service will be more accessible than it is now. I am sure that he will use the phrase, “Taking the service to the people, rather than people coming to bricks and mortar.” The advantage of bricks and mortar is that it cannot be closed down or moved. Services that go into the community can disappear: lorries, vans or whatever vehicles are used for mobile services can disappear.

[Mr Gauke]

The point I was making is that, yes, 281 inquiry centres are being closed, but there will be something like 350 venues that will be used for face-to-face meetings under the new regime. HMRC fully acknowledges that there is a need to deal with those people who require enhanced support and face-to-face meetings. It has been clear about that.

[John McDonnell]

The problem with call centres is that in order to secure a face-to-face meeting, someone has to get through on the phone. At the moment, the Public Accounts Committee has set HMRC a performance target of 90% of calls for 2013-14, but performance, as at December 2013, was 76.2%. So HMRC is significantly failing its existing call centre targets already.

[Mr Gauke]

It is worth making the point that HMRC has recently gone through one of the biggest peaks for telephone calls during the year, which is the self-assessment deadline at the end of January, and it met the 90% target even on the last day of January, so there is some progress in terms of HMRC’s contact centre performance.

In the time that I have available, I will turn to the consultation and pilots. As many hon. Members will be aware, in developing and refining the new service, HMRC undertook a wide-ranging consultation on its proposals last year. It also piloted the new service in the north-east of England from June to December 2013, closing 13 inquiry centres including, as we have heard, the Morpeth inquiry centre in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wansbeck, so as to run the live trial. Feedback from customers and staff has helped to shape the service that will now be rolled out nationally, which includes introducing alternative routes for deaf, hard-of-hearing and speech-impaired customers to contact HMRC online, and making it easier for a friend or family member to contact HMRC on behalf of a customer to arrange a face-to-face appointment.

Customers who have used the new service have liked it. Independent research has shown that the new service has delivered an improved service for customers who need extra help, compared with their previous experiences with HMRC. Some calls, particularly those about tax credits, can also be handled effectively by HMRC’s contact centre advisers. I know that concerns have been raised about the ability of contact centres to cope with the increased demand, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. However, as I have said, even in the self-assessment tax return peak in January, HMRC handled almost nine out of 10 calls first time.

I conclude by reassuring hon. Members that HMRC is making these changes for two main reasons: first, to better meet the needs of those 1.5 million customers who need more help with their tax and benefits; and, secondly, to ensure that the services it provides represent the best value for money for taxpayers. Many inquiry centre staff will have the opportunity to apply for roles in the new service; many others will choose to leave HMRC through a voluntary exit scheme, or will seek redeployment to other roles within HMRC or in other Government Departments. In short, HMRC is doing the right thing for its customers and for the country, and as a responsible employer it is treating its staff with consideration and respect as it implements this important new service.

Question put and agreed to.