Business Premises Renovation Allowances
David Gauke Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The business premises renovation allowances (BPRA) scheme provides 100% capital allowances for the capital costs of converting or renovating empty business property in certain disadvantaged areas of the UK, where the property has lain empty for at least a year, in order to bring the premises back into business use.
The Government remain committed to the objectives of BPRA, which is to foster the regeneration of deprived areas, by helping to increase private investment, enterprise and employment in deprived communities.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has, however, brought to the Government’s attention a recent increase in DOTAS (disclosure of tax avoidance schemes) disclosures, involving BPRA, which appear to contain features aimed at exploiting the relief in ways that Parliament had not intended.
The Government are fully committed to tackling tax avoidance to ensure the Exchequer is protected and fairness is maintained for the taxpayer.
The Government have, therefore, authorised HMRC to conduct a technical review of the BPRA legislation, with a view to making its policy purpose even clearer, so that the scheme may be made simpler and more certain in its application, at the same time reducing the risks of exploitation.
HMRC will shortly be publishing this technical review, along with an associated “Spotlight” article to alert people to the fact that almost all of the disclosed BPRA schemes appear to be seriously flawed and that HMRC will investigate anyone using them.
The technical review will invite comments on new legislative proposals, with a view to introducing new legislation in 2014.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
David Gauke Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
HM Revenue and Customs has published a draft National Insurance Contributions Bill.
I am placing copies of the draft Bill and accompanying documents in the Libraries of both Houses.
Corporate Structures and Financial Crime
David Gauke Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Meacher
I do not think that the previous Government did a great job. They did an appalling job on corporation tax, and the hon. Gentleman might be pleased to know that I said so at the time and I have always taken that view. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) raised the issue of capital gains tax with me when I was last speaking, and I think that that tax should be at the same level as income tax. Corporation tax is another matter, of course, but it should be well above the levels the Government are now proposing.
The Government can and should restructure the whole approach on tax avoidance by switching the onus of proof away from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and on to the potential perpetrators. That is exactly what my General Anti Tax-Avoidance Principle Bill was intended to do. It would have made it clear that any scheme whose primary purpose was to avoid tax, rather than being any genuine economic transaction, would be invalid in law and struck down. In order to discourage perpetrators of this attempt to bend the will of Parliament, there would be a sizeable penalty for attempting to subvert that will. My Bill had only a 10-minute showing on the Floor of the House, thanks to Tory filibustering of the prior Bill on that day, so perhaps I might take this opportunity to ask the Minister: does he accept the general anti-tax-avoidance principle? If he does not, what are his reasons for rejecting it? I think he will say that the Government are putting up their alternative—the so-called GAAR or general anti-abuse rule—but that really does not meet the ticket. I wish to say why, and I hope that he will listen to why the Government’s GAAR is really no alternative.
The GAAR is based on a report by Graham Aaronson, who was always a representative of the tax-avoidance industry and never of the tax-compliance will of Parliament. I accept that the GAAR will have some effect, because it outlaws egregiously aggressive and abusive tax avoidance, but of course the implication of that is that it legitimises rather less extravagant tax avoidance.
Mr Gauke
Let me put the right hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest on this by saying that the GAAR does not do that. We accept that the GAAR is directed at egregious tax avoidance. It is an additional tool, but there will still be targeted anti-avoidance rules and other measures that the Government take. I want to make it very clear that we are not saying that if something falls outside the GAAR, there is no problem with it.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing the debate. It has been wide-ranging, but I will focus my remarks, at least to begin with, on the issue that he focused on most, which was company misuse. If I have time, I will address other issues that were raised, such as tax avoidance, although to be fair we had a debate on that a week ago.
I am pleased to address company misuse because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) rightly pointed out, the Prime Minister has demonstrated leadership on this issue on the international stage. The Government are committed to tackling illicit activity and the misuse of corporate vehicles to facilitate such activity, and we are well aware of the impact such things have on the UK and the global economy. Such misuse is made possible because companies can be used to hide who is really in control and who is the beneficial owner. Hidden beneficial ownership to facilitate criminal activity is a long-standing issue, and international standards have proved difficult to implement effectively for many jurisdictions. For that reason, the Prime Minister put tackling that issue at the heart of the UK’s G8 agenda. I am sorry that one or two right hon. and hon. Members have been less than generous in recognising that.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
At Lough Erne it was agreed that each of the G8 countries would come forward with a national action plan for implementing the agreements made there, which for the UK will hopefully include the Crown dependencies. Have the Crown dependencies come forward with their draft plans, and do they include commitments to publish registers of beneficial ownership?
Mr Gauke
It is perhaps worth saying a word or two about the Crown dependencies because they have received criticism during the course of the debate. There is nothing illegal about an international structure, especially in a globally integrated economy, but what must stop is the use of offshore structures to hide assets and income illegally, and to evade taxes. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies have all committed to automatically sharing information to fight tax evasion, and to producing national action plans to set out how they will improve beneficial ownership transparency. The Crown dependencies have already published their plans, and the overseas territories have committed to do so by the end of the year. This is a significant step forward in transparency, and we will continue to work closely with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to ensure that the action to which they commit is robust and ensures the effectiveness of their systems. It would be a pity for this debate to give the impression that we do not acknowledge the significant progress made in recent months.
Returning to the G8, there was collective action to improve transparency of beneficial ownership and make it easier for law enforcement and tax administrations to fight company misuse. The G8 have committed to a set of common principles, and each member has committed to publish a national action plan. The US, France, Italy, Japan, Canada and the UK, as well as the Crown dependencies, have published their plans already, and Germany and Russia have committed to do so before the end of the year, along with the overseas territories.
The G8 action plan means a number of things for the UK. First, we will legislate to ensure that all companies know who owns and controls them. Companies will be required to obtain and hold information on their beneficial ownership—a requirement that will make it harder for criminals to hide their identity, and easier for law enforcement bodies to trace company misuse. Secondly, we will require that information to be held centrally at Companies House and made available, at a minimum, to law enforcement and tax authorities. Again, that will enable law enforcement and tax administrations to track down beneficial ownership information much more quickly. It will also help us develop better working relations with our international counterparts, by responding to their requests more quickly during cross-border investigations. To address the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), it is important that law enforcement agencies and tax authorities co-operate on such matters.
We will also consider whether that information should be made publicly accessible. Although there would be significant advantages to such an act, such as enabling greater scrutiny of the accuracy of the information and allowing investors and others to understand better with whom they are doing business, there would also be legitimate concerns about individual confidentiality and whether the information would always be used in the right way. The case of companies involved in animal testing raises an interesting point. Hon. Members may be interested to know that we have committed to consult on this issue.
Thirdly, we will be looking at what measures can be taken to mitigate the misuse of nominee—or sham—directors and bearer shares. The fact that both are currently allowed to exist is inconsistent with our desire to know who really owns and controls UK companies, so the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be issuing a public discussion paper on these precise issues shortly, setting out a number of options for reform.
I turn now to the issue of Companies House, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. The House will be aware that the core function of Companies House is to receive company information and make it available to the public, and a key part of this is ensuring that accounts and annual returns are delivered for every company. Compliance rates for those documents—97.9% for annual returns and 99% for accounts—are the best they have ever been and are amongst the best in the world, but we will continue to consider additional means to ensure that companies comply with all their statutory filing requirements.
For example, in response to calls for more transparency about the extent of company subsidiaries in tax havens, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has asked Companies House to check the accounts of all FTSE 350 companies for the disclosure of overseas subsidiaries information. Hon. Members may be interested to know that Companies House will publish the findings on this at the end of July.
On HMRC, there are legal remedies to stop taxes being avoided or evaded through dissolving companies without payment that HMRC makes regular use of. As an example, HMRC frequently requests restoration of companies to the register and then liquidates them, an act that allows liquidators to pursue directors for misfeasance and other wrongdoing. As a Government, we have reinvested in HMRC significant sums to deal with tax avoidance as a whole.
We are short of time and I am unable to address issues such as the general anti-abuse rule and the wider issue of tax transparency, but I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s commitment to dealing with opaque company structures that facilitate financial crime. It is thanks to the Government that this was put on the agenda for the G8 and that countries around the world are setting out action plans to deal with beneficial ownership. It is why there is a much greater exchange of information between jurisdictions now than we have seen before. We have a proud record in this area and I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clear.
Finance Bill
David Gauke Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 makes changes to the procedure for the granting of interim payments in common law court claims relating to taxation matters. Its effect will be to limit the circumstances in which interim payments may be granted in the rare tax cases originating in a common law claim as opposed to appeal through the tax tribunal. The new clause will bring the treatment of tax cases under the two routes into closer alignment. It will simplify the process and lessen administrative burdens for the Revenue and for claimants.
I should like to set out some of the background to this change. It corrects a difference in treatment with respect to the granting of interim remedies on tax disputes that arise depending on whether the claim is appealed to the tax tribunal or originates before the High Court, or the Court of Session if in Scotland. Generally speaking, appeals against a decision by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on a tax matter are appealed to the tax tribunal. This system is provided for in statutory tax legislation and is the standard route of appeal for a taxpayer who disagrees with a decision by HMRC.
There is no procedure for the granting of interim payments under this system. Instead, tax is paid or repaid as appropriate when a decision is made on the case. This is a sensible arrangement. The interim award procedure was not designed to be a remedy in a tax dispute. Its common application is to victims who have suffered serious injury to their health but the long-term prognosis leaves it unclear how much they should receive. An interim payment allows them to have enough money to make adaptation to their homes and to pay for care. Clearly, the complex adjudication of a tax dispute is a very different circumstance unsuited to the application of anticipatory payments in advance of final judgment. It is therefore right that the normal practice in tax disputes is not to grant an interim payment.
However, difficulty arises where a tax claim originates in common law. In such circumstances, it would currently fall outside the scope of the tribunal system and would therefore be appealed instead to the High Court. Here claimants may obtain interim payment before the matter is finally settled. Such payments may then need to be returned to the Revenue as the direction of jurisprudence changes at different stages of litigation. This back-and-forth process is administratively burdensome on both parties and adds to the cost of the litigation. Furthermore, it exposes the Revenue to a risk of non-recovery in the event that the taxpayer becomes insolvent after obtaining an interim payment that it is later required to hand back.
Let me set out a little more detail on the new clause. The measure will operate by limiting the power of a court to grant an interim payment to a claimant whose application for such payment is founded, at least in part, on a point of law which has yet to be finally determined. The court will, however, still be able to grant an interim payment to whatever extent is necessary to fund the ongoing litigation, as well as in some other defined circumstances where there is a strong case for granting such award. The measure relates only to those rare tax cases that fall outside the scope of the tribunal system. It is a procedural matter, not a change in tax policy.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Minister said that such cases are rare. How many are there each year, and how quickly will they be dealt with under the system proposed in new clause 7 as compared with now?
Mr Gauke
How quickly a particular case will be dealt with depends on the length of time it takes to be resolved. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his considerable experience as a Treasury Minister that some of these cases can take a number of years. It is worth pointing out that, by and large, large corporates tend to be involved in this type of litigation. The length of time it will take for a case to be resolved is ultimately unaffected by these changes. Their only significance is that there will not be interim payments in these rare cases.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how many cases there are per year. I cannot give him the number straight away, but it is very low. In the vast majority of cases, disputes are taken through the tax tribunal. As I say, this is about making common law cases consistent with tax tribunal cases. It is difficult to give the precise number of cases per year, but we are talking about low numbers.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for responding to my right hon. Friend’s useful question. Will he clarify why the Government are proposing this change as a new clause to the Finance Bill? What has come to light between the initial drafting of the Bill and this stage in the proceedings, which is clearly very late given that the Bill is due to receive its Third Reading today?
Mr Gauke
We have introduced it at this point because recent jurisprudence has crystallised our view in this regard. As I say, we want consistency between common law cases and tax tribunal cases. A degree of volatility has been created in terms of tax revenues that none of us should welcome. In short, the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that the reason is recent jurisprudence.
Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a little more detail in response to his question about rare cases. HMRC is aware of fewer than 10 strands of litigation where tax issues are being handled through the High Court. That is not to say that they would necessarily all involve interim payments, but I hope that that gives some sense of the scale of the issue. As I say, it is a procedural matter.
John Healey
It is helpful of the Minister to give the House an indication of the scale in terms of the number of cases. Can he also indicate the scale in terms of the amount of tax at stake in such cases?
Mr Gauke
The first point to make is that this does not ultimately change the amount of tax at stake, because a litigant will either win or not win. If a litigant who ultimately wins has not had access to an interim payment as a consequence of this measure, that does not change what they will ultimately receive. Some of these cases involve large sums of money, sometimes many millions of pounds. In some cases, interim payments have been very significant. However, I stress that this does not ultimately change how much money will end up in the pocket of the litigant. It is a question of timing and ensuring that we have some consistency.
Turning to why we are doing this now, it follows recent jurisprudence of the Court relating to the application of the interim awards procedure. This jurisprudence has crystallised our view that the interim payment procedure is not suitable for complex tax disputes. There is also an element of risk management in this. HMRC is routinely involved in litigation where the tax at stake may be for very high sums of money. The granting of payments on an interim basis before a final decision has been reached contributes to the volatility of tax revenues. By limiting the application of the interim payment procedure in common law court claims relating to taxation matters, and bringing the system into better alignment with what is standard practice in the tax tribunal, the new clause will cut down on complex work associated with calculating claims on a contingent basis before matters relating to liability and quantum have been resolved by the judiciary.
Catherine McKinnell
The information being provided by the Minister is very helpful. The impact note states that the change will have no Exchequer impact, but that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will benefit from reduced administrative costs and burdens. Is the Minister able to put a sum on that economic benefit to the Treasury?
Mr Gauke
That is a fair question and there will be a benefit to HMRC, but it is difficult to put a sum on it. I do not want to overstate the argument—we are not talking about an administrative saving of many millions of pounds—but clearly these cases are difficult to deal with. They involve the additional complexity involved in large-scale litigation matters that are taken through the courts. There is a saving, but I do not want to overstate it. The hon. Lady raises a perfectly fair question, but it is difficult to provide a precise number.
At a time when there is considerable pressure on resources, it is difficult to justify the considerable additional work that the interim payment procedure creates for the Revenue by adding stages to the litigation process. We have, therefore, taken the decision to legislate now in order to achieve better alignment between the treatment of different tax cases at the earliest opportunity. The Government believe that this will help bring an end to misalignment whereby the availability of interim payments in the context of tax differs depending on whether claims are brought in the court system or the tribunal system.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive account of new clause 7 and for responding to our queries. As he has said, the Government want to introduce a number of new clauses and amendments to the Bill. Could you clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether we are dealing with just new clause 7 at this stage, or are we taking any other amendments?
Mr Deputy Speaker
No.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 7 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 175
Election to be treated as domiciled in the United Kingdom
Mr Gauke
I beg to move amendment 1, page 105, leave out lines 4 to 13 and insert—
‘(3) Condition A is that, at any time on or after 6 April 2013 and during the period of 7 years ending with the date on which the election is made, the person had a spouse or civil partner who was domiciled in the United Kingdom.
(4) Condition B is that a person (“the deceased”) dies and, at any time on or after 6 April 2013 and within the period of 7 years ending with the date of death, the deceased was—
(a) domiciled in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the spouse or civil partner of the person who would, by virtue of the election, be treated as domiciled in the United Kingdom.’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 7 and 35 to 51.
Mr Gauke
These Government amendments make important changes to the UK’s inheritance tax rules.
Amendments 1 to 7 will bring in greater flexibility and provide more individuals with the option to elect to be treated as UK domiciled for the purposes of inheritance tax. They demonstrate the Government’s willingness to listen to the views of external interested parties and act where there is a principled case for change.
Amendments 35 to 51 are being made as a result of comments by interested parties. They clarify the technical interpretation of the legislation and change the commencement provisions with respect to certain liabilities.
Let me turn first to amendments 1 to 7 to clause 175. The clause reforms the inheritance tax treatment of transfers between UK-domiciled individuals and their non-UK-domiciled spouses or civil partners. The changes allow individuals who are not domiciled in the United Kingdom but who have a UK-domiciled spouse or civil partner to elect to be treated as domiciled in the UK for the purposes of inheritance tax.
The amendments are being made following comments from two key interested parties—the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the London Society of Chartered Accountants—about how the Finance Bill as drafted amends the inheritance tax treatment of spouses and civil partners not domiciled in the UK. Their further representations since the publication of the Bill in March have helped us understand the concerns raised in more detail. Considering the points raised has taken time, but the amendments will resolve these issues.
The clause as drafted stipulates that a person must be non-UK-domiciled and married at the time they make an election. Consequently, a person who has recently become UK domiciled would not be able to make a retrospective election that would cover a period when he or she had been non-domiciled. Effectively, they are trapped if they are not aware of the possible IHT consequences at the point just before they become UK domiciled—for example, if they decide to remain in the UK indefinitely after having children here. This might be especially harsh in situations where the original UK-domiciled spouse dies suddenly having made potentially exempt transfers to the surviving spouse.
Similarly, the Bill as drafted requires a person to remain married to, or in a civil partnership with, the UK-domiciled spouse or civil partner throughout the “relevant period” preceding the election, which can be up to seven years. Therefore, in circumstances where the marriage or civil partnership has been dissolved and the person is a non-domiciled individual, they are prevented from making an election retrospectively and hence prevented from gaining access to spousal relief for the period when they were married in return for their overseas assets being brought into IHT. That was not the intention of the policy.
Amendments 1 to 7 remove the condition that a person must be non-UK-domiciled at the time of making an election. They also remove the requirement that the person making the election is married or in a civil partnership with the UK-domiciled individual throughout the relevant period. The amended clause stipulates instead that they were married or in civil partnership at any time during the relevant period.
As a result of these amendments, individuals who are domiciled in the UK but who were previously domiciled elsewhere will be able to make a retrospective election. Similarly, the amendments will also enable individuals previously married or in a civil partnership to make a retrospective election following divorce or dissolution. This will ensure that changes in domicile or marriage status do not restrict the ability of individuals to elect to be within the UK inheritance tax system.
Amendment 1 simply removes a sub-paragraph that is no longer required as a consequence of amendments 2 to 6, while amendment 7 provides clarity that the provision for revoking an election applies only to the person who made the election and not to that person’s personal representatives.
Let me now turn to amendments 35 to 51 to schedule 34. Clause 174 and schedule 34 reform the inheritance tax treatment of outstanding liabilities. They introduce new conditions and restrictions on when a liability can be deducted from the value of an estate.
The current rules allow almost all outstanding liabilities at death to reduce the value of an estate, irrespective of how the borrowed moneys have been used, or whether the loan is repaid following the death. That creates opportunities for avoidance and can lead to decisions and arrangements being made purely for tax reasons. A range of contrived arrangements and avoidance schemes on the market seek to exploit the current rules. The number of those is expected to grow as other avoidance routes are closed off.
There is an inconsistency in how the current rules treat liabilities that are used to acquire assets that qualify for relief, but that are secured against different types of assets. That creates an advantageous tax position and distorts decision making by encouraging individuals to secure business loans against their personal property where there may be no need to do so. The Government believe that the tax system should neither encourage nor penalise the choice of one form of security over another.
Clause 174 and schedule 34 address those opportunities for avoidance and inconsistency in three ways. First, deductions will be disallowed where the loan has been used to acquire excluded property—that is, property which is excluded from the charge to inheritance tax. Secondly, where the loan has been used to acquire relievable property—that is, property which qualifies for a relief—the relief will be allowed against the net value of the property after deducting the loan. Thirdly, the loan will generally be allowable as a deduction only if it has been repaid from assets in the estate.
The Government are making those changes to improve the integrity and fairness of the inheritance tax system, close avoidance opportunities and remove the inconsistency in the treatment of loans.
Following the publication of the Finance Bill in March, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has received comments from representative bodies, practitioners and individuals that have highlighted sections of the legislation that could be clarified. Interested parties have also expressed concern that the new provisions will apply retrospectively where individuals have secured business loans on their non-business property for commercial reasons, rather than for avoidance purposes, before the changes were announced. Those individuals would face a higher IHT bill if they died before the debt was repaid.
Amendments 35 to 49 clarify the interpretation of the legislation to ensure that it works as intended, and address some of the technical issues identified in feedback. If a loan has been used to acquire excluded property, which later becomes chargeable to IHT, amendment 37 will allow the deduction for the liability. Conversely, if chargeable property subsequently becomes excluded property, the amendment will deny the deduction.
Where a loan has been used to acquire relievable property and that property is given away before death, amendments 41 and 42 will ensure that the liability is not deducted again against other types of property if it has already been taken into account. Amendment 45 will widen the meaning of “estate” to allow the liability to be repaid from property that is usually treated as being outside a person’s estate for IHT purposes, such as foreign property that is owned by an individual who is not domiciled in the UK. Where a loan has not been repaid and the deduction is disallowed, amendment 47 will make it clear that the liability will not reduce the amount that would be eligible for the inheritance tax exemption for transfers between spouses or civil partners.
The Government recognise that some lenders may require security in the form of personal assets and that individuals who have secured existing loans against their personal property to finance business investment may not be able to restructure the loan or unwind the arrangements. Amendments 50 and 51 will therefore amend the commencement date so that the new rules dealing with liabilities incurred to acquire relievable property will apply only to new loans taken out on or after 6 April 2013. That will mean that someone who took out a business loan in the past secured against their other assets will not be affected by the new provisions.
The commencement date for the other provisions in schedule 34 will remain unchanged as the date of Royal Assent. Those provisions will apply to other liabilities, irrespective of when they were incurred.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister is again providing a thorough explanation of the Government amendments. He may recall that the Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed concerns that clause 174 and schedule 34 were “profoundly anti-business” and did “not recognise economic realities”. Will the Minister provide reassurance that the Government are confident that those concerns are addressed by today’s amendments?
Mr Gauke
We have sought to address many of the concerns that have been raised. It is perhaps worth outlining the policy objective of limiting the deduction for liabilities. It removes a tax advantage that certain schemes and arrangements seek to achieve. It removes an anomaly in the current rules that may distort business financing decisions. The measures will ensure that the value of an estate that is subject to IHT reflects the normal economic consequences of incurring a liability. They support our policies on anti-avoidance and fairness.
Catherine McKinnell
Amendments 1 to 7 will make technical changes to clause 175, which introduces provisions by which an individual who is or has been married to or who is or has been in a civil partnership with someone who is domiciled in the UK can elect to be treated as UK domiciled for inheritance tax purposes. The Minister has set out in detail the reasons for the changes and the expected impact.
I have one additional question. The impact note that was published with the amendments states that there will be a negligible impact in this year, but that in future years there is expected to be a £5 million negative impact on the Exchequer. Will the Minister clarify how and why that negative impact will be realised?
Amendments 35 to 51 will alter schedule 34 and clause 174 on the treatment of liabilities for inheritance tax purposes. Understandably, the Minister focused on those proposals for the majority of his remarks, because they have been the subject of significant concern from a number of quarters. As he explained, the clause was drafted in response to avoidance schemes and arrangements that sought to exploit the inheritance tax rules that allow for a deduction for liabilities owed by the deceased against the value of an estate, regardless of whether the debt is paid after death.
HMRC has outlined some of those arrangements. Some involve contrived debts that are subsequently not repaid, so there is no real reduction in the value of the estate. Others involve loans that are used to acquire assets that are not chargeable to inheritance tax or which qualify for a relief so that the value of the estate is doubly reduced. The policy intention of the measure is to remove the tax advantage that such schemes and arrangements seek to achieve through the exploitation of that loophole. Obviously, that is an aim that the Opposition support.
The impact assessment shows a net positive return to the Exchequer of £5 million in 2013-14, rising to £20 million in 2014-15, then falling and remaining steady at £15 million after 2017-18. It is obvious why the impact will be lower in 2013-14, but it would be helpful if the Minister would clarify why the return is expected to peak at £20 million and peter down to £15 million on an ongoing basis. Presumably, individuals who are aware of the changes will, as executors, adjust their tax planning behaviour, but it would be interesting to understand why we expect that increase in 2014-15, and why the return will continue at £15 million on an ongoing basis. Is that return expected to continue indefinitely in terms of tax protected by the Exchequer?
A number of concerns about this measure were raised in Committee, and also expressed by several external organisations that the Minister mentioned. Most notably, there is concern that the new rules are too broad and may unintentionally catch genuine existing arrangements, rather than solely avoidance behaviour. It is welcome that amendments 35 to 51 seek to focus the new rules more tightly, and clarify the legislation where appropriate to minimise the impact on those with innocent arrangements. Despite the amendments, there are still a number of concerns about clause 174 and schedule 34. I have already asked the Minister whether he is confident that those concerns have been addressed, because even despite the amendments, concerns continued to be raised. It would be helpful if the Minister would provide comfort to the House, members of the public and tax professionals who are concerned about the clause.
The key concern expressed by the Chartered Institute of Taxation relates to debts that are not discharged from the estate of a deceased person. New provisions in clause 174 appear to mean that if a debt has not been discharged directly out of an estate, it will not be deductible for inheritance tax purposes. For example, if the deceased’s estate contains a house subject to a mortgage, the mortgage debt might be repaid from the proceeds of an insurance policy, payable directly to the beneficiary. Although a spouse or civil partner would not be subject to inheritance tax under such circumstances, a cohabitee or orphan child would be. Alternatively, if there is no insurance to pay off the mortgage, the beneficiary might take on the mortgage debt. In either case, as liability will not have been discharged directly out of the estate, which is a requirement of the new provision, it appears that it will not therefore be deductable.
I understand that HMRC intends to deal with such scenarios in its guidance, but it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify the position in his response. The Chartered Institute of Taxation previously expressed concerns that the measures are “profoundly anti-business” and do “not recognise economic realities”. Indeed, it went so far as to state
“we can hardly think of a more counter-productive measure than to deny relief for lending related to business.”
I am sure the Government will want to respond to that strong concern, given current economic conditions and their stated desire to stimulate economic growth. I am sure it is not their intention to enact measures that could be counter-intuitive to that desire.
The Government’s amendments mean that new rules on liabilities incurred to acquire a relievable property will apply to loans taken out or varied on or after 6 April 2013. That is important because of the retroactive nature of schedule 34, which has been criticised given the significant implications for business loans taken out many years ago and secured against a person’s house.
The Chartered Institute of Taxation continues to be concerned that the amendments do not provide adequate protection for small businesses. If a business loan was taken out many years ago but is varied after 6 April 2013, the transitional protection offered by the amendments falls away. That could trap small business owners into existing loans, or hinder anyone whose loan comes to an end, where the bank wants to alter the terms, or if the individual wants to refinance. Ultimately, the Chartered Institute of Taxation fears that that could result in people facing an unenviable choice between selling the family home and selling their business if the business owner dies. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on those concerns.
To return briefly to my comments on amendments 1 to 7, the impact assessment states that the proposed changes could impact on small businesses. There has been no consultation with small firms or any other groups, so perhaps the Minister will confirm that both sets of changes will not have the detrimental impact on small businesses and business lending that many tax professionals are concerned about.
Mr Gauke
I will try to address the hon. Lady’s points. First, on inheritance tax and non-domiciled spouses, she correctly mentioned the costs of the policy, which are largely due to an increase in the lifetime limit set out in the Budget documents. Clause 176 increases that limit from £55,000 to £325,000—it has not been increased since 1982, and we wanted to address that to be fair to non-domiciled spouses. That is the reason for the cost.
The yield from measures in clause 134 and schedule 34 comes from two main types of avoidance scheme that will be closed by these provisions. The main impact on one will be relatively short-lived. The hon. Lady is right to point out that we expect tax agents providing tax avoidance schemes to move on to new schemes in other parts of the tax code, and that will have a behavioural impact. That explains the peak in one year—2014-15—and the £15 million yield for subsequent years.
The hon. Lady mentioned the impact on business and I refer her to my earlier remarks—as you will have noted, Mr Deputy Speaker, I covered quite a lot of ground in a fairly lengthy speech. Estates will continue to get a deduction for loans or liabilities, provided they are not used to acquire assets that are not chargeable to inheritance tax and are repaid after death, unless there are genuine commercial reasons for non-repayment. Business and investment decisions are made on a range of factors, including tax. One of the Government’s key principles for good taxation is that the tax system should be efficient. It should neither favour nor penalise one form of lending or security over another. The new provisions will ensure that this is the case.
Catherine McKinnell
My point relates specifically to the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Many businesses that manage to obtain funding are often required to provide their home as security. If this provision has a detrimental impact on small businesses and puts family homes in jeopardy, will the Government keep it under review?
Mr Gauke
I can appreciate why the hon. Lady raises that point, but recent evidence from inheritance tax returns suggests that the majority of business overdrafts and loans continue to be unsecured. There may well have been changes to the balance between secured and unsecured business overdrafts and loans in recent years, but it remains the case that the majority are unsecured. Where security is provided, it is typically in the form of a charge on a business property. I understand why she raises the point, but the evidence suggests that this will not cause the concern that she anticipates. All measures are kept under review and this will be no exception, but we believe that we have got the balance right. This will address a distortion and an avoidance opportunity. I therefore hope that these proposals, as refined by the amendments, will become part of the Bill.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, page 105, leave out lines 39 to 43.
Amendment 3, page 106, line 4, leave out ‘spouse or civil partner’s’ and insert ‘deceased’s’.
Amendment 4, page 106, line 7, leave out from first ‘date’ to end of line 19 and insert—
‘if, on the date—
(a) in the case of a lifetime election—
(i) the person making the election was married to, or in a civil partnership with, the spouse or civil partner, and
(ii) the spouse or civil partner was domiciled in the United Kingdom, or
(b) in the case of a death election—
(i) the person who is, by virtue of the election, to be treated as domiciled in the United Kingdom was married to, or in a civil partnership with, the deceased, and
(ii) the deceased was domiciled in the United Kingdom.’.
Amendment 5, page 106, line 21, leave out ‘spouse or civil partner’ and insert ‘deceased’.
Amendment 6, page 106, line 27, leave out ‘or (4)(b)’.
Amendment 7, page 106, line 41, leave out ‘a lifetime or death election’ and insert
‘an election under section 267ZA(1)’.—(Mr Gauke.)
Schedule 2
Tax advantaged employee share schemes
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 9 to 16.
Mr Gauke
Clause 14 and schedule 2 provide a wide-ranging simplification of the four tax advantaged employee share schemes, following recommendations by the Office of Tax Simplification. The Government are introducing amendments 8 to 16 to provide further clarity on the rules that apply where company events involving “general offers” take place. When clause 14 was discussed in Committee, we highlighted some of the improvements that we are making to simplify the tax advantaged employee share schemes, and I shall provide hon. Members with some background on the specific provisions relating to these amendments.
Current legislation allows employees affected by certain company events, such as takeovers, to exchange their original scheme shares or options for shares or options in the acquiring company. The schedule also creates new rights for participants to realise scheme shares or exercise options without tax liability in the event of a cash takeover of their company.
Earlier this year, a tax tribunal hearing a particular case published a decision on what constitutes a “general offer” for the whole of the ordinary share capital of a company. Following this decision, and a number of requests from taxpayers and advisers, the Government consider it desirable to clarify the scope of what constitutes a “general offer” for the purposes of the provisions. The amendments clarify the position across all four tax advantaged employee share schemes, and confirm the rules as they have been consistently applied by HMRC. Our aim is to remove any uncertainty for advisers and taxpayers, consistent with the general simplification theme of the changes. The amendments, alongside the changes that already form part of the Bill, demonstrate the Government’s commitment to simplifying and clarifying the tax rules where possible.
Catherine McKinnell
These are technical amendments tabled in response to concerns about the operation of the share incentive plans in section 498 and schedule 2 to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. The amendments will clarify save-as-you-earn option schemes. We support the clarification of the rules that apply when general offers take place.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendments made: 9, page 144, line 45, after ‘“(7)’, insert—
‘For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.
(8) ’.
Amendment 10, page 146, line 20, at end insert—
“(3DA) In subsection (3D)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the relevant company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in subsection (3D)(b) the reference to the shares in the relevant company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.
(3DB) For the purposes of subsection (3D)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.’.
Amendment 11, page 147, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—
(3A) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (3)(b) the reference to the shares in the company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.
(3B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.”
(1B) A SAYE option scheme approved before the day on which this Act is passed which contains provision under paragraph 37(1) of Schedule 3 to ITEPA 2003 by reference to paragraph 37(2) has effect with any modifications needed to reflect the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1A).’.
Amendment 12, page 147, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
‘(1) In Part 7 of Schedule 3 (exercise of share options) paragraph 38 (exchange of options on company reorganisation) is amended as follows.
(1A) In sub-paragraph (2)(c)—
(a) after “982” insert “or 983 to 985”, and
(b) after “shareholder” insert “etc”.
(1B) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the scheme company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) the reference to the shares in the scheme company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.
(2B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) and (ii) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.”’
Amendment 13, page 149, line 34, at end insert—
“(2HA) In subsection (2H)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the relevant company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in subsection (2H)(b) the reference to the shares in the relevant company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.
(2HB) For the purposes of subsection (2H)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.’.
Amendment 14, page 150, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (3)(b) the reference to the shares in the company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.
(3B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.’.
Amendment 15, page 151, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
‘(1) In Part 6 of Schedule 4 (exercise of share options) paragraph 26 (exchange of options on company reorganisation) is amended as follows.
(1A) In sub-paragraph (2)(c)—
(a) after “982” insert “or 983 to 985”, and
(b) after “shareholder” insert “etc”.
(1B) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the scheme company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) the reference to the shares in the scheme company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.
(2B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) and (ii) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.”’.
Amendment 16, page 151, line 13, at end insert—
‘Enterprise management incentives
30A (1) In Part 6 of Schedule 5 (company reorganisations) in paragraph 39 (introduction) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) the reference to the issued share capital of the company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) the reference to the shares in the company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.
(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) and (ii) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.”
(2) The amendment made by this paragraph comes into force on such day as the Treasury may by order appoint.’.—(Mr Gauke.)
Schedule 9
Qualifying Insurance Policies
Catherine McKinnell
Well, I am pleased that the Minister is engaging with the need to review his own Government’s spending plans so they can take stock of precisely how those plans are working to resolve the unemployment situation and the lack of economic growth in this country. If the Minister could provide some reassurance that his Government are focused on reducing the debt, that would be very helpful.
Catherine McKinnell
Yes. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and it highlights the complacency of this Government. They feel it is a case of “job done” as some jobs have been created in the private sector, but ultimately the reality families are facing is that they cannot afford to pay for heating and buy food and what they need for their children and their families because living standards are being so desperately squeezed.
Mr Gauke
I just want to give the hon. Lady another opportunity to answer the simple question I asked. The position of her party has for some time now been to favour a cut in VAT. We do not support that approach, but does she support it? Does the Labour party still believe that, at this precise moment, VAT should be cut to 17.5%?
Catherine McKinnell
The Government clearly do not support that approach because one of the first things they did when they came to power was increase VAT and the costs for ordinary families up and down the country. We have said all along that we would not have taken those decisions. We would not have chosen to give a tax cut to those on the highest incomes. We would not have slapped a 2.5% charge on poor families who are struggling to make ends meet. We have made that very clear, but the Government have ignored that call. We think the Government should be taking action now to try to stimulate the economy and put some money back into very hard-pressed families’ hands.
Debbie Abrahams
No, I will not give way now, as I want to carry on with my argument. There may be an opportunity later.
Amazingly, just a few months after the Chancellor delivered his autumn statement, he had to halve his estimates for growth this year. We will be borrowing £245 billion more than planned since 2010, and as we have heard, the deficit will not be eradicated as the Government promised in 2010. In spite of being told how important austerity was for economic confidence and low interest rates, the triple A rating has been downgraded by not one but two credit rating agencies. The Government tried to blame everybody except themselves and said that austerity was the only way, only to receive an embarrassing rebuke from the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility who said that public spending cuts wiped 1.4% off growth last year. The International Monetary Fund followed suit shortly afterwards.
Should anyone wish to know how we relate to the rest of the world, we come 18th in the G20, due to our appalling economic performance. Even after the IMF revised its multiplier, the Chancellor remains steadfast. I could go on—[Interruption.] I am tempted. Our rate of inflation is way above the Bank of England’s 2% target. Employment is lower now than in 2008 and one in 10 people are underemployed. Whatever economic indicator we use, the Government are failing. By all accounts, the public are now starting to see that. Earnings are falling in real terms by 2%, and a recent poll showed that four out of five people feel that austerity is not working. As we have heard, the Chancellor is resolute and sticking fast. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have also tried to pass this off as everybody else’s fault, but we need to examine the arguments put forward to explain why we are in this mess.
The previous Labour Government have been blamed, but that ignores the fact that this was a global financial crisis. We should remember that at the time the Chancellor and the Prime Minister failed to suggest that our financial institutions required more regulation. The Chancellor has tried to suggest that it is a public spending issue, but public spending as a percentage of GDP was 36.5% in 2007, compared to 42.5% in 1997. In other words, the Labour Government did repair the roof when the sun was shining. We brought down the deficit when we were in power, and it is outrageous to suggest anything else. After injecting funds into our banks, public spending rose to 60% of GDP, but the City’s debt was 245% of GDP. For this Government to pass the crisis off as a sovereign debt problem is absolutely outrageous. This was a problem in our financial institutions that they said nothing about when they were in opposition. They are still failing to grapple with this major issue. They have not managed to improve it.
The Government are trying to distract attention away from our financial institutions and blame what they refer to as shirkers and scroungers. Their attack on the social security budget is outrageous. We must not forget that 43% of social security is paid to older people through old age pensions. This attack is on our pensioners, and that is disgraceful. Growth of just 1% a year since 2010 would have generated £335 billion more. If growth had been 2% a year, that figure would have been £551 billion. Many economists have said that the lack of growth as a result of the failure of economic policy may not be recoverable.
On the areas taking the biggest hits in the spending review—I have just alluded to the Department for Work and Pensions—we must not forget local government. What will the cuts hit? They will hit our social care budget—the budget for the most vulnerable in our society. That is outrageous. Although the NHS budget has been protected, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that job losses are likely to continue. We have already seen 300,000 people lose their jobs in the public sector. It is estimated that another 300,000 will lose their jobs in the next two years. The indirect effect of cuts to work and pensions, local government and the NHS will be to hit our pensioners and increase the number of children growing up in poverty, which will affect the rest of their lives, to more than 1.1 million. We are also seeing, for the first time in decades, life expectancy coming down in certain areas. I could go on, but I will finish there.
Mr Gauke
New clause 10 asks for a review of the impact on tax revenues of the measures set out in the 2013 spending review. I note that the Labour party again seems to be interested in discussing matters that are not in the Bill as such. Rather than discussing the Bill, Labour Members want to discuss the spending review—although given how the spending review went for the Opposition, they might have done better to spend last week debating the Finance Bill.
Let me explain briefly why new clause 10 is unnecessary. The House will be aware that in 2010 this Government created the Office for Budget Responsibility in order to ensure that the impact of Government policies is independently scrutinised. The OBR routinely publishes economic and fiscal outlooks, which provide a transparent and independent assessment of the impact of Government policy on the public finances, including receipts, and the economy. The impact of the policies announced in the 2013 spending round will be reflected in the OBR’s autumn forecast, which will be published alongside the autumn statement, so there is no need for a parallel review, which is what new clause 10 would involve.
We have had an interesting debate about the measures in the spending review. At times I have been somewhat confused about the Opposition’s position. I had understood that they accepted the spending review envelope, although it certainly did not sound like it from what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said. She described local government spending cuts as “devastating”, so we assume that she opposes that measure. She was not quite clear about where further cuts would be made to compensate for that, but no doubt she will enlighten us in future.
We also heard the Opposition make the argument that we should take steps to boost growth now, rather than focusing on 2015-16. That was not an endorsement of changes such as planning deregulation, which can help growth, or a more competitive tax system. Indeed, we have tried to work out exactly what Labour believes in this area, but it was not clear. We have consistently heard about a five-point plan from the Opposition, including a cut in VAT, which was the flagship of that plan. On three occasions the hon. Lady was asked whether Labour still favoured a temporary cut in VAT under the current circumstances; on three occasions that question was evaded. I will happily give her the opportunity to intervene now if she wants to provide an answer. Do the Opposition believe in cutting VAT now? [Interruption.] She is not going to answer that question. I think we have seen the abandonment of the five-point plan—
Andy Sawford
One of the frustrations for my constituents is hearing the Government give highly political answers when they are being held to account. New clause 10 is important because it seeks to look at the impact of the measures in this spending round. The Minister says it is unnecessary, but if he looks at the contrast between the OBR forecast at the time of the 2010 spending review and real growth in the economy, he will see that it was wide of the mark and that our economy has been flatlining for the last three years. That is why we need to know the real implications.
Mr Gauke
If the hon. Gentleman accepts the OBR numbers, he really ought to accept the OBR analysis of why what he describes has not happened.
However, let me not go into that. Rather, let me turn to what appears to be the panacea coming from the Opposition, which is to say that we should borrow more in order to invest in capital infrastructure. It ignores the fact that the Darling plan—Labour’s plan to address the deficit partially—involved substantial cuts in capital spending. It also ignores the comments made by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) about some of the challenges of using infrastructure for pump-priming purposes. The argument also ignores the fact that we will be spending more on capital infrastructure as a proportion of GDP in this decade, a period of austerity, than in the previous decade, when the Government were throwing money around. It also ignores the measures that we have set out for delivering the biggest programme of road investment since the 1970s, for updating our rail networks, for securing our energy infrastructure, for investing more in science and innovation, for building new homes and schools, for establishing the single local growth fund, for expanding digital coverage and for investing in our flood defences.
Catherine McKinnell
I was hoping to leave the Minister time to respond to some of the serious concerns that we have raised, but this complete fantasy-land account of the Government’s record on infrastructure investment has prompted me to jump to my feet. Will he confirm that his Government are investing less in infrastructure than was proposed under the Darling plan? They are investing 1.7% less in real terms over the course of this Parliament, and again in 2015-16. They are also borrowing more.
Mr Gauke
It is clear that the balance of our plan has focused much more on current spending, as compared with capital spending, than did the plans that we inherited.
I want to turn to the issue of HMRC, which the hon. Lady rightly raised. I can assure her that, as a consequence of the measures we are taking, HMRC’s yield is going up compared with what we inherited. By 2015-16, yield will have increased by approximately 70%, which represents a staggering increase in the performance of HMRC under this Government. Yes, staff numbers are falling but, when it comes to enforcement and compliance, staff numbers will be higher in 2015-16 than they were under the previous Government. We should not always focus on inputs; we should focus on outputs. The record on outputs is very good. If the hon. Lady wants to focus on inputs, however, she should be aware that the record of the previous Government involved the number of staff working in enforcement and compliance falling by 10,000. Under this Government, that number will be increasing.
I have run out of time, but I believe that the spending review is evidence of a Government who are prepared to take the difficult decisions that we need, and a Government who have economic credibility. The contrast with Labour could not be greater.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Gauke
It is a pleasure to return this debate to the amendments to clause 38 and schedule 18 to the Finance Bill before us. Before I discuss Opposition amendment 57, I shall say a few words about amendments 30 to 34, which are designed to ensure that clause 38 and schedule 18 work as intended. The clause and the schedule make improvements to the REITs regime. This year’s Finance Bill improves the REITs regime by allowing a UK REIT to treat income from another UK REIT as income of its tax-exempt property rental business. Therefore these amendments do not affect the policy, but rather ensure that it works as intended. The change would generate positive benefits for the REIT industry, and also meets the Government’s wider objectives.
Let me provide some background. During the technical consultation in February, stakeholders told us that the changes as drafted might not work quite as intended. HMRC has consulted further with interested parties, and we agree that minor changes are necessary to achieve the desired policy aims. The problem, as presented by interested parties, concerned the balance of business test, which requires that at least 75% of the REIT’s profits must come from a property business. Interested parties were concerned that in certain circumstances, a REIT that invests in another REIT might fail that test even though the lower-tier REIT derives all of its income from a property business. Consideration of the issue has revealed that minor amendments are required both to the new and the pre-existing legislation. These amendments together will ensure that the Bill’s changes correctly implement the intended policy, which is that profits of a property rental business comprising the new type of tax-exempt income do not include amounts attributable to capital allowances and other tax adjustments.
Turning to Opposition amendment 57, we have had a very broad debate this afternoon. Indeed, it has felt more like an Opposition day debate on housing than a debate on the clause and the schedule. The amendment proposes that the schedule shall come into force after the Chancellor has conducted a review of the interaction of REITs with the housing market, and I hope to address the issue of REITS and the housing market in my remarks.
Cathy Jamieson
I hoped the Minister would understand that the nature of the debate reflected Opposition Members’ genuine concerns about the Government’s record on housing. But specifically on REITs, when he responds to the arguments in favour of the review, will he be able to say something more about the future of REITs and social housing?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Lady can rest assured that I will address that very point, if not necessarily every point made in the wide-ranging debate.
The proposal set out in amendment 57 is that
“The Review shall consider…tax measures in place to support house building; and…what steps HM Government have taken to support house building”
but the Government’s view is that there is no need to postpone the changes to the REIT regime, as the proposed review would add little value at this time. There is something of a routine here of the hon. Lady requesting a review and me turning it down, and she asks so nicely that I feel almost pained in doing so, but the reason we believe in this case that a review would add very little is that there are not yet any REITs with substantial housing assets on the market, so it is too early to assess any interaction of REITs with the housing market. We do not accept the amendment and I urge her not to press it to a vote.
The new changes to the REIT regime are an example of tax measures to support house building. As REITs represent the supply side of the property market, any improvements to the REIT regime are expected to have a positive impact on the market.
The hon. Lady made a couple of points on how the REIT regime works: the first, which I believe we touched on in Committee, was whether the regime could support people who want to own their own home. It is worth pointing out that residential REITs can provide accommodation only in the private rented sector, so they are not designed, nor could they be used, for the purpose of home ownership.
The second point, on which the hon. Lady intervened, was on the relationship with social housing and what role REITS could play in that sector. There was full consultation in summer 2012 involving a number of one-to-one and group meetings with interested parties in the social housing sector. The reality is that yields on, for example, affordable rents do not appear to be high enough to attract investors into that sector, but I assure her that discussions are ongoing with non-social housing entities and other interested parties to explore the possibility of residential REITs. If a workable residential model can be found, it might be possible to use it to further a move into social housing, and we certainly would not rule that out. At the moment there appears to be no interest in using REITs for those purposes, but we are entirely pragmatic about that.
We believe that REITs have a valuable role to play and we do not want to delay the implementation of the schedule while we conduct a review from which there is little to be gained. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
We discussed wider housing policy, but I do not intend to be drawn into a lengthy, general debate on housing. I just point out that we announced £5.4 billion of additional support for housing in the last Budget, building on the £11 billion this Government have already committed to investment in housing over the spending review period. Last week’s spending round announcement confirmed a total of £5.1 billion-worth of investment to support housing in England from 2015-16 to 2017-18; £3.3 billion of that new funding is for affordable housing over those years and will support the delivery of 165,000 new affordable homes in England over the next three years. I can also point out some of the recent housing numbers. Housing building starts in England rose by 4% in Q1 2013, seasonally adjusted. Housing starts are 15% higher than in the same quarter last year. Starts are now 62% above the 2009 trough.
Mr Gauke
No, I want to give the hon. Lady a moment or two at the end of the debate to respond to the points that I make.
The amendments before us, alongside the changes that already form part of the Bill, show the Government’s continued support for REITs and the UK property sector. I believe the Government amendments will be welcomed by interested parties. The delay that would result from Opposition amendment 57 would be unfortunate and I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw it.
Cathy Jamieson
I find myself in the same slightly pained position that the Minister described. He said no so nicely, as he normally does, that I hesitate to come back with extremely critical comments. I am disappointed once again that he has not heeded our arguments, especially the argument for a review and a look at how the wider tax regime deals with housing issues.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friends will be aware that at the last election the Conservative party set out a policy of allowing married couples and civil partners to transfer up to £750 of unused tax-free personal allowance where the recipient is a basic rate taxpayer. They will also be aware that two points in the coalition agreement are relevant to this debate: first, our commitment to increasing the personal allowance to £10,000, to be prioritised over other tax cuts; and secondly, the provision for Liberal Democrats to abstain on Budget resolutions introducing transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to the coalition agreement.
I want to be very clear that the Government support the principle behind the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). We are committed to recognising marriage in the tax system. As we have made clear, and indeed as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has pointed out, we are committed to legislating for that in this Parliament. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will be announcing our plans shortly.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham wants us to be specific on implementation. I can assure him that we want to implement this at the earliest opportunity. Of course, recognition of marriage involves a new attribute to our income tax system, requiring Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to link married couples in a way that does not currently happen. That is deliverable, but I am not going to set out a timetable today. Once we are able to make an announcement on timing, the Chancellor will do so, but I repeat that we want to do this as soon as possible.
There are some differences between the Conservative party’s position at the last election and new clause 1. The new clause is targeted at a subset of married couples—those with children under the age of five—and does not limit the amount of the allowance that could be transferred, although it gives the Chancellor the ability to restrict that by order. However, it does not apply any income limits or restrictions on the rate of relief, which means that it could provide double the benefit to those paying tax at the higher rate. Obviously we want to make sure that this is well targeted.
There are some specific points about new clause 1 that would need to be addressed regarding the measure of income, the definition of “child”, and the date of election set out in new section 37B(1)(c). However, I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are considering these points in great detail and that an announcement of further details on how we want to take this measure forward will be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the months ahead.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is satisfied with those reassurances and that he feels able to withdraw new clause 1 now that I have put on record our commitment to and belief in legislating for this and our desire to implement it at the soonest opportunity.
Mr Gauke
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Finance Bill 2013 delivers the Government’s commitment to creating a tax system that is fair, that promotes growth and competitiveness and that rewards work. This Bill supports enterprise, helps families and ensures that everyone pays their fair share of tax.
We should pause for a moment to remember the background to the Bill. The Government inherited the largest peacetime deficit since the second world war, a deficit we have already reduced by a third over the three years since 2009-10. During this time, more than 1 million new jobs have been created by British business. We have had to make some tough choices, but the results show that we are making the right choices. The Government are leading the road to recovery—to putting the economy back on course—and this Bill continues that agenda.
Mr Russell Brown
Does the Minister recognise that the 1 million jobs that have been created are allocated disproportionately across the UK? My local authority area has lost 2,000 private sector jobs and the average wage has now fallen 24% below the national average. Some areas are hurting.
Mr Gauke
It was not that long ago that we were told that the reductions in public sector employment would not be met by new jobs in the private sector, but they have been met many times over. The reality is that we have an astoundingly good record on job creation over the past three years, despite the fact that the economy has faced significant challenges.
This Government have established a corporate tax system that attracts international investment to the country and that encourages UK businesses to grow. Corporation tax will be eight percentage points lower in 2015 than the levels we inherited in 2010. This Bill cuts the main rate to 21% next year and 20% the year after, which will give us the joint lowest rate in the G20, the lowest of any major economy in the world and the lowest rate this country has ever known.
The Bill does that alongside separate action to incentivise activity across the economy. It introduces a new above-the-line credit for large company research and development investment, provides reliefs that are among the most generous in the world for the animation and high-end television industries, and gives long-term fiscal certainty to the oil and gas industry on decommissioning tax relief.
Mr Stewart Jackson
There was no time to debate new clause 3 on air passenger duty so I will not speak to it, but will the Treasury continue to review the effects of APD on the travel industry and the wider economy?
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention so soon after the first. Does he realise that APD is particularly damaging to the ambition of rebalancing the economy in Northern Ireland, especially when there is such a low level of APD just over the border in the Republic of Ireland? Will he undertake to look seriously at the issue with regard to Northern Ireland?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Lady will be aware that we have made a number of concessions in that area with regard to Northern Ireland and I say again that we will keep those matters under review.
The Bill will support a wide variety of sectors, encourage innovation and send the clearest possible signal that business is welcome in the UK.
The Government’s strategy is underpinned by our commitment to fairness. The Bill will reward hard work and help families with the cost of living. It will lift an additional 1.1 million individuals out of income tax with the largest ever cash increase to the personal allowance. The allowance will be set at £9,440, making assured progress towards the longer-term objective of making the first £10,000 of income free from income tax. That objective will allow people to keep more of the money that they earn.
I should not have to remind hon. Members that the Bill keeps fuel duty frozen, nor that it removes a penny from beer duty. Those measures will make a real difference and support individuals on low incomes who want to get on.
We are taking steps to ensure that those with the most contribute the most. We have introduced a charge on owners of high-value properties placed in a corporate envelope, along with an extension of capital gains tax on the non-natural persons disposing of those properties. We are targeting reliefs appropriately. The cap on the previously unlimited income tax relief and the reduction of the pensions tax relief lifetime and annual allowances are significant in ensuring that everyone pays their fair share.
We have taken significant action to crack down on tax avoidance and evasion. The Bill legislates for the UK’s first general anti-abuse rule, which provides a significant deterrent to abusive tax avoidance schemes. Where they persist, it will give HMRC the tools to tackle them. Just because something is not covered by the GAAR does not mean that it will not be addressed in other ways. We have closed 15 loopholes that have been used to avoid tax, and strengthened the successful disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime. Since its introduction in 2004, more than 2,000 tax avoidance schemes have been disclosed to HMRC. The changes made in the Bill will improve the information that promoters have to provide to make it even more effective.
Our position is clear: non-compliance and contrived tax arrangements will not be tolerated. The Bill will help to reduce the tax gap, make the law robust against avoidance and optimise our operational response.
Jonathan Edwards
The Minister will be aware that the Silk commission on Wales stated that the Finance Bill would be the appropriate legislative vehicle to implement its findings. Those findings have not been implemented in the Bill, so what legislative vehicle will the Government use to implement the Silk report when they respond?
Mr Gauke
As the hon. Gentleman says, the Government will respond to the report in due course. Further details will be provided at that point.
On simplification, we continue to shape the tax landscape. A tax system should be easy to administer and to understand. To that end, the Government set up the independent Office of Tax Simplification in 2010. I pay tribute to the invaluable work that it has done. The Bill takes forward the recommendations from its review of small business tax. It introduces two optional simpler income tax schemes for small incorporated businesses and a new time-limited disincorporation relief for small businesses that feel that a corporate form is burdensome. Small businesses make a vital contribution to the UK economy and public finances, and these measures recognise that contribution. We have acted to provide certainty and clarity in other areas. The statutory residence test and the reforms to ordinary residence are a significant and welcome simplification of the tax code, if not a shortening of it.
Many of the measures in the Bill have been subject to extensive consultation and scrutiny—processes that are entrenched in the Government’s approach to making tax policy. The statutory residence test was consulted on three times between summer 2011 and February 2013. The Chartered Institute of Taxation said that that was a
“good example of how to make good tax law”
and we would agree.
The Government have shown their commitment to greater transparency and broadening the range of impacts that they consider. For the Finance Bill 2013 we published more than 400 pages of draft legislation, and we are grateful for the 400 or so responses we received. Through such engagement we have considered the views of interested groups and taxpayers, and we considered them further in Public Bill Committee with more than 49 hours of scrutiny—to some of us, it may have felt longer.
I thank all those involved in the Bill, whether officials, interested parties, parliamentary counsel, my hon. Friends the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Opposition Members, and Back Benchers, who all contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill. This Finance Bill delivers real reform, supports business and growth, upholds principles of fairness, rewards work, and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to creating a tax system that reduces the deficit and builds a prosperous economy. I commend the Bill to the House.
Saville Products Ltd and HMRC
David Gauke Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Crausby. I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) who, as ever, represented his constituents with great eloquence and made a good case on their behalf.
I should state that in the case raised by my hon. Friend, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—or the Inland Revenue, which was the relevant organisation for much of the time—clearly did not carry out its investigation appropriately and did not complete its review process to the standards expected. I am aware, both from his comments today and from the previous meeting to which he referred, of the distress and worry that his constituents have suffered as a consequence, and I offer my sincere sympathies and apologies for their experiences during that period.
I feel that it would be of most use to address two issues in the course of the debate. First, I shall set out the procedures in place to ensure that all taxpayers, such as my hon. Friend’s constituents, can receive a fair and independent review of any grievance. Secondly, I will address the issues that he has specifically raised involving Mr and Mrs Nelson.
On the first point, I should start by stating that employees of HMRC clearly must understand fully that compliance checks can be stressful to taxpayers. To be fair to HMRC, it sets high standards for professionalism and customer service, and deals with the vast majority of cases fairly and efficiently. With more than 500,000 compliance checks undertaken annually, there are likely to be some cases when claimants feel that those standards have not been met. In such circumstances, it is absolutely right that taxpayers, or their agents, can submit a complaint about the action of HMRC.
HMRC has a well-established two-tier complaints process for such situations and makes a concerted effort to resolve all complaints at the first opportunity. That involves a fully trained and experienced case handler who undertakes a full review of all aspects of the complaint. If the customer remains unhappy following that process, they can ask for the complaint to be looked at again. This second-tier—or tier 2—review is carried out by a different case handler to help to provide an independent perspective on the case. Again, it is worth noting that the vast majority of cases are resolved over the first two tiers. In the tax year 2011-12, HMRC successfully resolved 98% of complaints over the two tiers.
In cases when the taxpayer remains dissatisfied with the response, such as in the case involving Mr and Mrs Nelson, it is right that they can ask the adjudicator or the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to look into their complaint. The adjudicator is a fair and unbiased referee, and the service provided is free to the taxpayer, provided that the complaint falls within the adjudicator’s remit.
The adjudicator’s role is to investigate and help to resolve complaints from individuals and businesses that remain unhappy about how HMRC, the Valuation Office Agency or the Insolvency Service have handled their affairs, after they have exhausted the relevant organisation’s complaints handling procedure. That can include complaints about mistakes, delays, poor advice, inappropriate staff behaviour or the use of discretion.
As my hon. Friend is aware, a customer can also ask their Member of Parliament to refer the complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The ombudsman is independent of the Government and investigates complaints impartially, specifically on allegations of complicity or malpractice. Investigations by the ombudsman are conducted in private, and the relevant legislation restricts her ability to provide detailed information about specific investigations.
I can confirm that if the ombudsman decides that a Department or an arm’s length body has made a mistake, she will work with it to correct that error. That could involve acknowledging the mistake, issuing an apology and paying compensation. In all cases, it should involve ensuring that the same mistake does not happen again.
That leads me to the second part of my response: my hon. Friend’s interest in the specific case of his constituents. As I mentioned at the outset, it is clear to me, having taken a personal interest in the case, that significant mistakes were made by HMRC and its predecessor organisation. The original investigation was not handled well, and that was further compounded by the failure of HMRC complaints handlers to acknowledge that.
In the case of all complaints that are referred to either the adjudicator or the ombudsman and that are upheld, HMRC undertakes a thorough internal review and, as would be expected, steps are taken to ensure that lessons are learned by not just the individuals involved, but the entire body, in an effort to ensure that mistakes are not repeated elsewhere. One area in which HMRC has learned lessons from such complaints and improved its processes is alternative dispute resolution. It uses the skills of an independent HMRC facilitator to work with customers, agents and caseworkers to try to reach an agreement and resolve disputes.
HMRC has held a successful pilot and is now rolling out that approach more widely, and I hope that that provides some reassurance that action has been taken, following the ombudsman’s report to improve performance in this area. However, I have seen from correspondence that my hon. Friend’s constituents raise concerns about the “agenda” of the ombudsman in failing to uphold entirely the complaint made, and suggest that if I accept the conclusions reached by her, I am condoning “dishonesty, deceit and collusion”. Although I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s constituents, and I understand the frustrations that they have experienced, I strongly contest that suggestion. There can be no doubt about the independence of the ombudsman from HMRC—or indeed any Government Department—and I therefore believe her judgment in this matter to be sound.
My hon. Friend’s constituents have been critical of the level of payment awarded, as it is significantly below the amount they believe would represent sufficient recompense for the expense incurred and anxiety caused by the compliance check. Compensation has, however, been paid for the identifiable and evidenced expense incurred as a result of the extended investigation and, additionally, a compensation payment has been made for the unnecessary suffering caused by HMRC’s handling of the matter, in accordance with the instructions of the ombudsman. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the payment is much higher than is normally the case in such circumstances. However, the ombudsman did not find sufficient evidence of economic loss and accordingly did not direct HMRC to pay any compensation in that regard.
I reiterate my apologies and sympathies to my hon. Friend’s constituents for the undoubted worry and distress caused to them as a result of failings at HMRC or the Inland Revenue, as it was for much of that time. It is always regrettable when avoidable errors such as those made during this investigation result in the kind of personal hardship that no amount of financial compensation can eradicate.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have been listening to this debate with great interest and I must say that Mr and Mrs Nelson have inherited the fighting spirit of the great admiral who shared their surname. I have a similar case in which HMRC is pursuing a medium-sized firm for about £1 million in notional lost tax for goods that were bound for export but were stolen. The firm was an innocent party and the tax is notional, but HMRC is threatening the livelihoods of 40 employees and will not let the matter go. When the Minister says that such cases are always unfortunate and that we should put up our hands and say sorry, will he take a sympathetic view and have a word with the organisation to say that sometimes it is better to prevent the wrong from taking place in the first place, rather than having to apologise for it afterwards?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. It is not possible for me to comment on individual cases, although I know that he has taken a close interest in that matter for some time. Perhaps we can have a quiet word about it afterwards. It is not possible for me, as a Minister, to intervene in operational matters, but it is right that HMRC has the correct procedures in place.
To return to the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, it is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that it originated in 2001. The UK’s tax authority has undergone radical changes since then, not least with the formation of HMRC itself. While that does not in any way excuse the errors that were made, the organisation has made significant improvements in the past 12 years. Furthermore, let me reaffirm my faith in the work of the parliamentary ombudsman—in the context of HMRC and beyond. I have trust in her impartiality and independence. Although I appreciate that this is not the answer that my hon. Friend is looking for, and I have no doubt that he will continue to represent the case of Mr and Mrs Nelson strongly, the ombudsman has reached her conclusion and it should be respected.
Finance Bill
David Gauke Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans
Yes, but I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I was in the Treasury Committee when Bob Diamond came to give evidence about LIBOR and that I was in the Chamber when the Chancellor announced the investigation. I listened to it and it made me sad. It made me sad because I realised for the very first time that people do not trust anybody any more. That is the problem. It goes much deeper than economics, politics, banking or whatever. People simply do not trust others any more. [Interruption.] I know that I am digressing from the new clause, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that you are itching to stop me. I want to put it on the record, however, that I genuinely feel that people do not trust each other any more. That is the saddest thing of all about this issue. It does not matter whether we are talking about Conservatives or Labour, people just do not trust politicians, journalists, lawyers or others. This is a much deeper problem than anything else for our society.
That brings me to the issue of anger about what the family man or family woman will save from what is on the kitchen table tonight. When those people hear about the tax cuts for the rich, I am sure they will think of those bankers who may or may not have committed crimes, of the journalists who may or may not have committed crimes, and of the editors of national newspapers—people earning six-figure salaries—and they will believe that those are the people who will get rewarded. That may not be the case, but that is the perception, and as we all know as politicians, the perception is usually stronger than reality. What members of the public will think about this Government and about this place is that they are run by an elite who are more interested in helping out their friends in the City than anything else. That is the real tragedy of this issue.
I have sat here and heard all the arguments about the tax cuts. Yes, I have attacked what I believe is a failed economic theory, but the truth is that the Government won the election in May 2010. I do not like that personally, and I hope that we can turn that around in 2015. The Government have the right to put whatever they want into the Finance Bill, and we cannot change it, much as I would have loved to table an amendment to abolish this tax cut. I cannot, and all we can do is bring about a review. This review is crucial because it will allow us to see how much this cut for millionaires is affecting the British economy.
This may be deemed an aside, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you may call me to order, but let me ask the Minister one more question. When the Treasury was considering the 5p tax cut, did it also consider a 1p tax cut for those whose earnings were below the threshold? If it did not consider that option, why did it not do so, and if it did, why did it rule it out?
You are clearly champing at the bit, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you want me to wind up my speech, and I shall try to do so. [Interruption.] Do not get too enthusiastic, please!
We need a review. We need to know the facts, because this is so important.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We have heard a couple of rather lengthy speeches about a topic that is fairly familiar to those of us who have dealt with Finance Bills in the past. We discussed the reduction in the top rate of income tax at some length during the early, middle and late stages of last year’s Bill, and we have discussed it on a number of occasions during our earlier debates on this Bill. It is striking, however, that the number of Labour Back Benchers present during much of today’s debate so far has been three or perhaps four. Although we have heard some passionate and lengthy speeches, I am not sure that I need to make a lengthy speech in response, but a few basic points are worth making.
The Government agree that the wealthiest should make the biggest contribution to deficit reduction, and it will be clear to anyone who looks at our record across the board that we have stuck to that principle. In the 2010 Budget, the higher rate of capital gains tax was increased. In the 2011 Budget, we tackled a major area of tax avoidance, namely disguised remuneration. The Labour party opposed that measure in Committee, but we tackled the problem none the less, and our action has resulted in considerable extra revenue, particularly from high earners.
The 2012 Budget, which contained the measure that has provided the subject matter of most of today’s debate—the cut in the 50p rate of income tax—also introduced a new rate of stamp duty for high-value homes, measures to clamp down on stamp duty land tax avoidance, and a cap on reliefs used in the tax system, which raised an amount considerably larger than the cost of the cut in the 50p rate. The 2012 autumn statement provided for action to reduce the cost to the Exchequer of pensions tax relief, and the 2013 Budget contained further measures to tackle offshore tax evasion by, in particular, high earners.
We clearly have a strong record in this respect. We have gained additional revenue not only from capital gains tax and stamp duty, but—as is shown by the distributional analysis—from the income tax paid by the top 1% of earners. That was mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who pointed out that we are receiving more from the top 1% than the Labour party ever managed to.
It is interesting to note that the proportion of income tax contributed by the top 1% exceeded 25% in only one year during Labour’s time in office, namely 2009-10, which was a slightly strange year because a large amount of income was brought forward so that the tax could be paid at a rate of 40% rather than 50%. In that year, 26.5% of income tax was paid by the top 1%, but in the remaining years the proportion was 25% or lower. We estimate that in 2013-14, with the new lower rate of 45%, nearly 30%—to be precise, 29.8%—of income tax receipts will come from the top 1%. The problem with the 50p rate was that it was not very good at doing what a tax is supposed to do—raising revenue. That is the Labour party’s essential difficulty in advocating a 50p rate of income tax.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I do not understand all the differentials, but is the Treasury model that we would get more tax income by reducing the rate than by leaving it at 50%?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend brings me to the point that I wanted to move on to: the report that the Chancellor of the Exchequer commissioned in Budget 2011 to evaluate the Exchequer impact of the additional rate of income tax. The report was published alongside Budget 2012. It concluded that the underlying yield from the increase from 40% to 50% was much lower than originally forecast, owing to large behavioural effects—it was possibly only £1 billion and could in fact be negative. The 50% rate also risked damaging growth and the UK economy if it had remained permanent.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) focused on our policies. The inconvenient truth for the Labour party is that it had the opportunity for 13 years to test the 50p rate to destruction, but we quickly saw the evidence of the Laffer curve, which shows that, as we lower tax rates, we can collect more revenue. The Government should be congratulated on finding alternative ways of trying to get the rich to pay their just deserts, if the Labour party wants them to do that. In fact the Government have collected more money from the rich by lowering the rate from 50p to 45p and by looking at other ways to collect that money.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point is not whether we should seek to get a significant contribution from the wealthiest; it is how we go about doing it. There is a real problem with a very high rate of income tax directed at the most mobile people, who have many more options in how they respond. Not surprisingly, the evidence that the HMRC evaluation discovered is that there is a significant behavioural response.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said, “This is all tax avoidance and one should crack down on tax avoidance.” I agree: one does need to address tax avoidance, and we have more ambitious targets for HMRC than it has ever had before. We have made a number of changes to the law to address avoidance. I could go on at some length about the steps that we have taken, but the behavioural effect is not only about tax avoidance, it is also about behaviour that is entirely consistent with Parliament’s intentions. One might find people making bigger pension contributions, for which the House has determined tax relief should be available. One might find people retiring earlier or locating in other jurisdictions. All those things have an impact.
Therefore, there is a significant behavioural effect in this area, which brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) made: the 50p rate is not an effective way of raising revenue, which is why, in my opinion, the Labour party will not give a commitment to bringing the 50p rate back. It knows it is bad economics and does not raise revenue. It knows it sends a bad message about the UK as a location in which to do business. That is why Labour had a 40p rate for 4,722 of the 4,758 days that it was in office. There was a 50p top rate for just 36 days at the very fag end of the last Government, when they knew with a fair degree of confidence that they were going to lose office.
Mr Newmark
I sympathise somewhat with the point of the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) about his and his party’s desire to target bankers, but if we want to create an entrepreneurial society, we must realise that not all the big wealth creators are bankers; they are also people in manufacturing, hi-tech industry and so forth. If we want them to settle in the UK, we must make our tax environment attractive and competitive internationally.
Mr Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is giving a thoughtful economic analysis, but he perhaps misunderstands where the Opposition are coming from, because I do not think they are particularly interested in the economics. The fact is that their position is now so desperate that they have their 36% strategy, they are entirely paid for by the union movement, and their desire now is to lurch to the left. They do not care if they get less money; what they want to do is appeal to a core vote which they hope will be enough to return them to power because of the invidious and unfair electoral system we have. That is what is going on, which is why we waste our time when we talk about entrepreneurialism or the benefits to public services, because they are not really interested.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend takes a sceptical view of the Opposition, and events may well turn out to justify it. I want to take a more charitable view, however—although perhaps it is, in fact, a different form of scepticism or cynicism. My view is that they are not really serious about the 50p rate at all; much though they talk about it, they will not, in truth, pursue this policy because they know it is so damaging and that it does not do anything to raise revenue. That is why, despite repeated questions earlier, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who does like to be straightforward with the House, refused to say whether Labour would support a 50p rate after the next general election. She makes the argument that Labour will have to delay and wait to see what the state of the economy is, but given that we know this does not raise any substantial amount of revenue, it cannot be dependent on the state of the public finances; instead, it is a matter of political calculation. I hope my hon. Friend is wrong and that the Opposition are trying to edge away from a position that they saw as populist but which, in truth, is economically incoherent.
Cathy Jamieson
I am intrigued by the amount of advice being given to the Labour party by those on the Government Benches. Given that the Minister said he wanted to be in charitable mode, to return to the new clause, will he not concede that there is an argument for looking at the matter more thoroughly and having this review in order, as the Treasury Committee concluded in its report on the 2012 Budget, to discover what the actual impact of reducing the rate would be?
Mr Gauke
I am not persuaded by that argument. I hoped the hon. Lady would take that opportunity to provide some clarity on the Labour party’s position, but she did not do so. We do not need another review. We have evaluated the impact of the 50p rate. It was an economic failure. It failed to raise revenue. It in effect put up a “closed for business” sign over the UK economy. It was about politics, not economics.
I urge the Opposition to withdraw the new clause, and I hope they will also return to their approach of a few years ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough pointed out, when Tony Blair was in charge he was making pledges not to increase the top rate of income tax. That at least demonstrated a sense of where the UK needed to be and its place in the world, but that has, I am afraid, been long forgotten by the Labour party which just drifts ever leftwards.
Cathy Jamieson
Following the Minister’s example, I will be brief. We have had a useful debate containing some impassioned speeches, not least those from my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who, interestingly, sought to give advice to the Labour party. My hon. Friend gave an interesting critique of Laffer curve economics but related it, importantly, to what happens in the real world. He spoke with a great deal of passion and experience from his time working in the financial services sector. He was absolutely right to say that not everyone working in the banks was wrong, and many people working on the front line are trying to change things and to clear up the problems. These people did not adopt the principles that got the banks into such difficulty.
Earlier, I read out a couple of quotes from various hon. Members about cutting the top rate, but, to keep a balance across the coalition, let me cite one that I missed from the president of the Lib Dems. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has said:
“Cutting the top rate was a stupid thing to do. It probably raised up to £3bn a year. We should pledge to restore the 50p rate at the next election. It’s not enough to be fair, you have to be seen to be fair.”
That has been one of the threads running through this afternoon’s debate. [Interruption.]
Again, I hear Government Members muttering from a sedentary position about what the Labour party is going to do. I outlined this earlier, but I will state it again: we will, of course, set out our manifesto in due course, in time for the general election—that is absolutely the correct thing to do—but we will not make false promises. We will not make promises that we will not be able to keep. Let me remind the House of that quote from the Prime Minister:
“I have been very clear—we have all been very clear—that we have to do this in a way that is fair so that the broadest backs bear the biggest burden.
That is why we haven’t changed… the 50p tax rate.”
As I outlined, that particular pledge was not kept and those with the broadest backs do not appear to be carrying the biggest burden.
The Minister said that he wanted to be charitable and to understand why we tabled the new clause, and I know from Finance Bill Committees that he does at least reflect on things. He rarely gives in to temptation to resist the advice he is given to reject all amendments and new clauses, but he does at least give the appearance of reflecting. In this case, I cannot understand why he will not accept a mild-mannered proposal that simply seeks to have a review of the impact of this measure and to bring forward further information for the interest of hon. Members across the House. That is a reasonable and sensible thing to do, and I know that the Minister, certainly in opposition, has regularly argued for this type of review. We have heard nothing from him today to explain why, suddenly—[Interruption.] Given the side conversation that is going on, I am sure that the Minister never got any of those reviews into the legislation at that time, but I say to him that there is a first time for everything. He could, even at this late stage, decide it was the correct thing to do to allow the review to go ahead and ensure that the House had further information.
I do not want to repeat all the points made earlier, as that would not be helpful at this stage. However, I simply remind the House that it is not only Opposition Members who are claiming or suggesting that there are concerns about this measure. To go back to the IFS, it stated:
“By giving out £3 billion to well-off people who pay 50p tax…the Government is banking on a very, very uncertain amount of people changing their behaviour”.
Much of the Government’s argument has been predicated on the notion that people will change their behaviour, but I have heard nothing from the Government that suggests to me that behaviour would be changed in such a way that there would suddenly be a huge influx of resource into the Treasury. The IFS went on to say:
“There is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of risk on this estimate.”
Chris Leslie
That is precisely why we think the proposal needs the Treasury’s support—to ensure that we can see what the levy would be. To return to our new clause, we think that the Liberal Democrats make a reasonable point that £2 billion could be raised on properties worth more than £2 million. We have not included those figures in our new clause; we have simply said that the Exchequer Secretary should study the issue and consider a 10p income tax rate band, to be funded by the proceeds of a mansion tax. That obviously depends on how wide the 10p band would be, so it is obviously moveable and that would flow through into the figures on the mansions tax.
Mr Gauke
I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. He says that the Labour party’s objective is to raise £2 billion. Our assessment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has pointed out, is that there are 55,000 properties worth more than £2 million in the country. We have the finest minds in the Treasury working on this, and they have divided £2 billion by 55,000—it did not require a huge amount of work—and ended up with an average of £36,000 a year as the annual levy. That is an average, and there might be some cases where the hon. Gentleman would want a lower rate for those who are property rich but cash poor. Can we just have some clarity? Does the Labour party want an average levy of £36,000 on all properties worth more than £2 million?
Chris Leslie
That was a good try by the Exchequer Secretary, and I understand where he is going with that argument, but I am not an estate agent and do not have a figure for the number of properties worth more than £2 million. However, it is very interesting that the Government have started counting the number of such properties. He talks about how the £2 billion would be defrayed across that number, which I am not sure is correct, but of course there would be a banding exercise, with different bands for properties worth more than £2 million, and we would see how far that goes. That is precisely why we need the Treasury to share some of its calculations with us. I am sure that it must be more than a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation from the Exchequer Secretary. Let us do the work, publish the findings— [Interruption.] Well, I will give way to him if he will agree to publish that work. Will he publish the internal Treasury assessment of the policy, because it would be very helpful?
Mr Gauke
Short of showing the workings, £2 billion divided by 55,000 is £36,000. The hon. Gentleman says that there would be different bands, but we would still end up with an average of £36,000. He will also find that most of the properties worth more than £2 million are worth only slightly more—between £2 million and £3 million. He will not find huge numbers of properties worth between £5 million and £10 million and so on. He has all the numbers he needs. I think that we can move on to the next debate.
Chris Leslie
I know that the Liberal Democrats support the Government on that and note the sedentary remarks from one of only two Liberal Democrats in the Chamber today. It is typical of the Treasury to hold back key information on these facts and figures. We need to know where those properties are and what valuations have been made. The Exchequer Secretary has done the work on the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, but he did not say that he would publish those findings. I think that we might be about to reach some consensus on this, because he is suggesting that the Treasury has done some work on it secretly, rather like the secrets held back in the spending review document, which was so thin that we still do not really know where the cuts have hit. Why does he not publish that information and start telling us how that could work in those circumstances? Will he publish it?
Mr Gauke
Actually, I quoted the figure of 55,000, which appears to have come as a huge surprise to the hon. Gentleman, several times when we had a similar debate in Committee. Admittedly, he was not dealing with the matter; his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) was. The figure has been in the public domain for some time. Has he done any work on the matter?
Chris Leslie
I do not know how simple I need to make the point for the Exchequer Secretary, so I will do so very slowly and particularly. The new clause suggests that the Treasury—that means him, by the way—should publish some proper, worked-through evidence on where those properties lie across the country, how a banding proposal might work and what the options for the width of the 10p starting rate of income tax might be. By the way, he did not say a word about whether or not he supports a 10p starting rate of income tax.
Mr Gauke
New clause 9 proposes the introduction of an income tax rate of 10p on a band of income determined by the Exchequer yield of a mansion tax. Let me explain why the Government do not believe that the new clause is sensible
We are already helping people on low and middle incomes by means of the tax system. In May 2010, the coalition agreement set out our commitment to making the first £10,000 of income free from income tax by the end of the Parliament. In April we increased the personal allowance to £9,440—that was the largest ever cash increase—and it will rise again, by a further £560, to reach £10,000 in 2014-15, meeting this Government’s commitment a whole year early.
Opposition Members clearly think that it would be better to introduce a starting rate of income tax, but let us not forget that they introduced a 10% rate once before and then scrapped it, to the cost of many of the people further down the income scale whom they claim to want to help. We have replaced the 10p rate that they doubled with successive increases in the tax-free personal allowance which effectively provide a 0% band. Our changes in the personal allowance have already more than compensated those who lost out when the 10% rate was abolished. In fact, since April 2013, those who lost the most as a result of the last Government’s policy have paid no income tax at all.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies,
“the proposal for a new 10p starting rate of income tax, has no plausible economic justification. It would complicate the income tax system and achieve nothing that could not be better achieved in other ways.”
The IFS says:
“A far simpler and more sensible way of achieving these aims would be to spend the same amount of money on increasing the personal allowance...This would have virtually the same impact on individuals’ tax payments… be slightly more progressive, take some people out of income tax altogether and avoid the complexity involved in introducing a new income tax rate.”
Proposed subsection (2) of the new clause proposes the introduction of a mansion tax to pay for the proposed introduction of a 10p rate. That proposal has already been debated a number of times in the House, and the Government’s position is clear. The coalition parties have different views, but the view of my party is that a mansion tax is not the answer.
We expressed our concern in the Public Bill Committee, during a debate on the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. As we made clear then, a third of the properties in London that are worth over £2 million have been owned by the same people for more than 10 years. Many of those people, such as elderly owners whose properties had increased substantially in value during that period, would be faced with an average tax of £36,000 every year, and could be forced out of their homes. Moreover, families or other owners of high-value homes would not necessarily have the liquid income that would enable them to pay the tax. A mansion tax could hit asset-rich but potentially income-poor households.
Mr Gauke
I will in a moment. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s question, and will listen to it attentively. Before I do so, however, I should acknowledge his assurance that there would be a case for some type of mitigation for people in the circumstances to which I have just referred. That would, of course, have an impact on the yield, and the average of £36,000 would increase.
Chris Leslie
With whom do the Minister’s sympathies lie most? Do they lie most with the householder faced with the hardships of the bedroom tax, or with the householder faced with having to deal with the mansion tax?
Mr Gauke
Let me reply by echoing what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions during Question Time this afternoon. For all that we hear from Labour Members about the so-called bedroom tax—the spare-room subsidy—they have given no indication that they would reverse the current Government’s policy. For all the bluster on that—[Interruption.] Let me make this point. Labour Members should be straightforward about the fact that their policy would have an impact on, for example, elderly widows who have lived for many years in a property whose value has increased. Would they seek to address that?
In addition, the mansion tax would not be precisely targeted at the very wealthy. It would not take into account the number of properties owned. Therefore, a person owning two properties valued at £1.9 million each would not fall within its scope but a family owning a £2 million home would, even though their property wealth was much lower. Any mansion tax would be complex to introduce and administratively burdensome for HMRC to operate. It would come at a cost for taxpayers, not to mention that it would be intrusive for the person having their home inspected.
I know that the essence of Labour’s argument is that we already have the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. However, that is a very targeted tax. Essentially, only 1,000 properties are likely to be affected by it, so it applies to only a very small group of taxpayers. HMRC can therefore administer the tax manageably, relying on self-assessment, with a limited number of inquiries. A mansion tax would affect a much larger number of taxpayers and require greater administration and valuation, which would make it much more expensive, time consuming and difficult to collect.
Chris Leslie
I am interested in the fact that the Minister thinks that the analogy is not applicable. How, though, would the administration of the mansion tax be more time consuming? The owner of the property would have responsibility for the valuation. It would not be more onerous for HMRC in that respect, if it were to follow the design of the ATED arrangements.
Mr Gauke
We do not believe that that model could be scaled up to apply more generally. A proper valuation process will be needed if the mansion tax is a much less targeted tax. Let me give the Labour party a degree of credit, however. The hon. Gentleman said that Oppositions are often asked how they would pay for a measure, and the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said that Labour has a policy to pay for this proposal. However, under the mildest of questioning, the policy appeared to unravel before our eyes. The target yield is £2 billion. I repeat a number that I gave some weeks ago in Committee: the Treasury believes that 55,000 properties are valued at above that level. We undertook that research to cost the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. That is the number. A very simple calculation gives us an average of £36,000 a year. Rather than Labour saying, “We accept that. That is how we will pay for this. That is how we will get a yield of £2 billion,” it is sliding away from the policy. It is not accepting that that is the consequence of what it is advocating. If it thinks that £36,000 is too steep—maybe it does not, maybe it does—it should acknowledge that, but that is the average cost. I suspect that Labour does think that it is too steep and that is why the £2 million threshold is under threat. That is why, to raise £2 billion, any Government would have to apply the mansion tax to lower down the property ladder. That is why a tax that is designed for the few will become a tax for the many. The tax is ill thought out. Either it will result in very high sums being levied on small groups, or it will not raise anything like the yield that the Labour party claims it will and it will apply more generally.
Introducing a mansion tax would create real fairness issues by hitting asset-rich but potentially income-poor households. It would serve only to create complexity and uncertainty. The personal allowance is the most effective way to support those on low and middle incomes, because it enables people to keep more of their money. It is a better policy than reintroducing the 10p rate of income tax. The Government have made huge strides to make a fairer society and a stronger economy. All elements of the new clause are flawed. I urge the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) to withdraw the motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 5—Restrictions on buying capital allowances.
New clause 12—Anti-abuse measures—
‘(1) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall review the possibility of bringing forward measures as part of the GAAR to work in conjunction with other G8 countries to require multi-national companies to publish a single easily comparable statement of the amount of corporation tax they pay in the UK.
(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall review the effect of incorporating a global standard for public registration of ownership of companies and trusts via a convention on tax transparency, including a requirement on companies to publish a single easily comparable statement of the amount of corporation tax they pay in the UK, on Treasury tax receipts.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall consider, when counteracting tax advantages arising from tax arrangements that are abusive, what steps HM Government could take, working alongside developing country governments, to assess how UK companies could report their use of tax schemes that have an impact on developing countries, and how the UK could assist in the recovery of that tax.
(4) Within six months of the passage of Royal Assent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall place copies of the review in the House of Commons Library, and consult with G8 countries on their effectiveness.’.
Government new schedule 1—Transfer of deductions.
Government new schedule 2—Restrictions on buying capital allowances.
Mr Gauke
This Government are determined to crack down on tax avoidance by the small minority of individuals and companies who are unwilling to pay their fair share of tax. This Bill includes some important anti-avoidance provisions, including the general anti-abuse rule—the GAAR—a major new development in UK tax law and a key part of this Government’s drive to tackle tax avoidance, and, in particular, abusive tax avoidance schemes. The Government have also made it clear that we will continue to legislate to close down specific loopholes if there is a clear case for doing so.
Before addressing the GAAR and the Opposition’s new clause 12, let me discuss new clauses 4 and 5, and new schedules 1 and 2. At this year’s Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government proposed to introduce legislation in the Finance Bill 2013 to prevent companies from entering into arrangements to access, as part of a business transfer, various forms of unrealised corporation tax losses from unconnected third parties—a practice that, for the sake of brevity, I will refer to for the rest of the evening as latent loss buying. Legislation on that matter was not included in the Finance Bill published in March, in order to allow more time for consultation with interested parties. Technical detail on the circumstances and manner in which the proposed legislation would operate was published on 20 March. That was followed on 28 March by the publication of draft legislation for a period of technical consultation. New clauses 4 and 5 and new schedules 1 and 2 introduce those targeted latent loss buying rules to this Finance Bill, and take on board comments received during the technical consultation.
Let me set out a little background to these new clauses and schedules. The UK’s loss relief system provides a measure of parity between taxing profits and relieving losses over the life cycle of a business, ensuring that businesses with different patterns of profit and loss pay a broadly similar amount of tax. Relief is based on long-standing underlying principles that: brought-forward trade losses should only be relievable against future profits from the same trade, carried on by the same legal entity; tax losses should not be transferable against profits of unconnected parties; and the movement of losses between companies should be allowed only where they are under common economic ownership for the accounting period when the losses arise. Within those principles, companies can gain relief for losses through being set off against profits in a number of ways. However, loss relief and business reorganisation rules are designed to prevent companies from passing the benefit of a loss to an unconnected third party. Those tax rules are designed to prevent companies from “selling” losses to some unconnected company that has taxable profits.
However, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now seeing a marked increase in companies entering into different arrangements to access deductions not caught by those existing rules. Indeed, we are expecting the new rules to bring in revenue of close to £1 billion over the next five years. A particular pressure point arises where it is possible to dictate or predict the amount and timing of reliefs, allowances and deductions. Where those are sizeable, they can encourage tax-motivated reorganisations through which unconnected entities may get access to what are, in effect, unrealised losses.
Where the amount and timing can be dictated or predicted, ownership or part-ownership changes can take place in advance of the crystallisation of the amount, enabling the current loss-buying rules to be bypassed. Such arrangements may take the form of selling all or some of the shares in a company or the assets of a company, where either there are allowances that could have been claimed but were not by the previous owner or where it is known that a debit will be created in a future accounting period. Arrangements can, however, be more complex and contrived, and may also involve moving profits into a company to use up relevant deductions.
These new clauses and schedules therefore deliver on what the Chancellor announced at the Budget. They bring the tax treatment of unrealised amounts, involved in a transfer between unconnected parties, more closely into line with the long-standing treatment of realised losses. The proposed changes introduce three separate rules to combat latent loss buying. The first rule expands the application of current rules in chapter 16A of part 2 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001—I am sure you have fond memories of that Act, Madam Deputy Speaker. The other two rules are targeted anti-avoidance rules—TAARs—to be included in a new part of the Corporation Tax Act 2010. One seeks to counter tax-motivated reorganisations between unconnected parties involving other forms of relevant deductions, and the other seeks to counter arrangements that aim to transfer profits to companies so that the relevant deductions can be used.
A draft of the legislation was published for technical consultation on 28 March and nine responses were received: four from legal firms, two from accountancy firms and three from individual businesses. The majority of representations related to the technical application of the legislation rather than the underlying policy intent and have been addressed in the provisions before us today. I hope that is helpful to the House and anticipates some of the questions that might be raised by those on the Opposition Front Bench. Of course, I am happy to deal with any further questions later this evening.
Let me turn to what I suspect will take up most of the time for our debate this evening—that is, new clause 12. As I have said already, the GAAR is an important new tool, but it is not a panacea. New clause 12 focuses on much broader issues to do with the taxation of multinational companies, which have already been extensively debated during the course of the Bill and fall beyond the scope of the GAAR. Let me once again explain why that is the case.
New clause 12 first asks for a review of ways to require companies to publish a clear statement of their UK tax payments. That is not a matter for the GAAR. I am aware that the GAAR does not do what people want it to do by tackling a wider range of tax issues, particularly those involving multinational companies. We have never pretended otherwise.
The GAAR can of course apply to multinational companies if they engage in abusive schemes, but the broader issues concerning where and how their profits are taxed are grounded in how the international tax system operates. That is why we are driving forward the OECD’s work on improving international tax standards through the G8 and G20. Both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have set out clearly that international tax problems need international solutions.
We accept that tax rules have not kept up with the age of electronic business, but the answer is not for the UK to take unilateral action. That approach would do the UK no favours as a location for business investment. It would risk setting in train a disparate approach among our trading partners, with serious consequences for international trade and growth and hence for jobs in the UK.
The OECD report on base erosion and profit shifting, which was endorsed by the G20 in February this year, shows that to tackle the issue effectively requires collective action to strengthen international tax standards. The Government have been at the forefront in taking forward work on the issue through the OECD.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Minister has made some rather bold statements. Will he reiterate what he just said? He suggested that the proposal made by new clause 12, which asks the Chancellor to review proposals for the Government to require the production of a single corporate tax figure, as well as the other amendments, would result in lost jobs in the UK. Will he confirm whether that was what he said and on what evidence the statement was based?
Mr Gauke
That is not quite what I said. I said that it would not be sensible for the UK to take unilateral action to change the tax law that applies internationally and that the best approach to dealing with international tax issues is to work multilaterally with other economies to update the tax system. I shall turn to some of the specific elements of new clause 12 in a moment, but I am setting out the framework. It is sensible for us to work with other countries to ensure that the international tax system does what it needs to, rather than going off on our own and making changes that could damage the UK’s competitiveness. I am sure that no one in this House would want us to do that.
Mr Newmark
I congratulate the Government on their work, particularly in the G8 meeting, in trying to co-ordinate efforts to prevent abuse by multinational companies. Such companies are extremely portable and, does he not agree that the big problem is that if we do not act on a multi-jurisdictional basis, they can move anywhere? If we take unilateral action and they move, that risks jobs in this country—that is why we must never act unilaterally in dealing with such situations.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Elements of a business are highly portable. In 2007-08, for example, the UK’s position on headquartered companies was very uncompetitive because of our controlled foreign companies regime and a number of businesses moved their headquarters out of the UK and went elsewhere, which had an impact not just through lost corporation tax revenue but more widely, as it meant that individuals paying income tax and decision making were moved out of the UK. That was not in the UK’s long-term interest, so we reversed the situation. Now we have a much more competitive position, which means that companies are moving back to the UK and that new businesses are moving here, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) is absolutely right that elements of a multinationals’ business are very mobile and that we need a tax system that reflects that. An important part of making our tax system fit for purpose is that it should reflect that, which is why we should work multilaterally.
Mr Newmark
Not that I like to pick on individual countries, but does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence from France, with a relatively newly elected left-wing Government, suggests that businesses and wealthy individuals are moving across the channel in their droves to set up business in the UK?
Mr Gauke
I would say—I think that this is the most tactful way of putting it—that the Government are determined to send the signal that the UK is open for business. That is how we can win the global race. Other Governments might wish to take other approaches, and that is for them to decide. For the UK, we believe in open markets and a competitive tax system—but a tax system, none the less, in which businesses pay the tax they should and in which economic activity is properly taxed.
We have made a commitment to act and have backed that up with extra resources for the OECD. The UK has been actively participating in the development of the OECD’s comprehensive action plan for tackling such issues, which will be presented to the G20 later this month. It might interest hon. Members to know that at the recent Lough Erne summit the G8 called on the OECD to draw up a common template for multinationals to report to tax authorities where they make their profits and pay taxes around the world. That will give tax authorities a new tool against tax avoidance to help them efficiently identify and assess risks, but requiring publication of that information would put the UK at a competitive disadvantage to other countries that did not require publication. It would also impose costly administrative burdens on business and Government.
The new clause proposed by the Opposition would require all multinational companies to report all their UK corporation tax payments—not just tax related to the GAAR, but the whole of their UK corporation tax. That goes way beyond the clear policy that we have set for the GAAR and would risk giving an impression that the GAAR has an impact on all corporation receipts, creating the sense of uncertainty about the impact of the GAAR that we have gone to some lengths to avoid.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am interested by the Minister’s comments. The Minister has concerns about publishing such data, but in other cases the Prime Minister extols sunlight as the best disinfectant. Is it not important, if the public are to be confident in our tax system, for them to have such information? Why does he feel that tax receipts should be exempt from that disinfectant process?
Mr Gauke
There is a long-standing and widespread approach that tax is a matter of confidentiality between taxpayers and the tax authorities. I say that the approach is long standing; it is the approach we have had in the UK for time immemorial.
It is also the position that applies in pretty well all major economies, and if we were to change that approach, it would be sensible to do so multilaterally. If we introduced a requirement that multinationals based in the UK had to publish information in a way that would not apply if they were based elsewhere, that would raise questions about the attractiveness of the UK as a place in which to do business.
On how to move forward in this area, I would make the wider point that we work multilaterally. That approach was endorsed by Tony Blair, who, in a recent interview, said that if countries move unilaterally, others will eat your lunch, to put it bluntly. I think that was the phrase he used. It is right that we work with other countries to ensure that we have an effective tax system, but I would not favour measures that left the UK isolated in such a way.
Stewart Hosie
I am genuinely confused. The Minister said that the measure would go wider than the GAAR as intended, because it covered all a business’s corporation tax, but part 5 of volume II of the Bill states at clause 203(3):
“The general anti-abuse rule applies to…corporation tax, including any amount chargeable as if it were corporation tax or treated as if it were corporation tax”.
The idea that the proposal would widen the measure beyond the scope of the Bill does not appear to be correct.
Mr Gauke
I hope I can clear up the hon. Gentleman’s confusion. The GAAR applies to corporation tax—I am not arguing for a moment that it does not—but the point is that lumping in the new clause, which is based on the GAAR, and moving from the GAAR being quite carefully targeted at abusive tax avoidance to essentially saying that everything needs to be published under the GAAR as part of a general anti-avoidance or anti-abuse rule would rather confuse things. It is a pity to muddle the two. There is an argument for greater transparency and for publishing things, and there is an argument for a GAAR, but to bring the two together as the Opposition have done—perhaps that is partly due to parliamentary constraints and so on—sends out an unfortunate message. The two should be kept apart. I hope that has made things clearer for the hon. Gentleman.
Stewart Hosie
Well, not particularly, because the other argument that the Minister used is that the proposal might put us at a competitive disadvantage. However, the Bill is clear: one of the priority rules is the double taxation agreements that are already in place, so nothing could be done that impacted on the amount of tax a corporation paid in relation to its tax in the UK and elsewhere, because the double taxation agreements would have priority in any event. The Minister is trying hard to explain why he does not like the proposal, but he is not really succeeding.
Mr Gauke
The double taxation agreements are part of the international structure, but that is not the only element that determines whether the UK tax system is competitive. The point I am arguing is that our engagement and the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor represent the right way to go about changing how multinationals are taxed. I would consider, for example, what came out of the Lough Erne summit and, more broadly, measures to ensure that people pay the right amount of tax, as well as the dramatic progress that has been made including, on tax evasion, the exchange of information between Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and indeed the creation of a new international norm based on the American Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. That is a big step forward, and we continue to take steps, leading the way in this multinational effort to give tax authorities new tools to deal with tax avoidance by providing more information about beneficial ownership. All those are steps that can help us to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion. I hope they will be welcomed by all Members of the House.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
May I say how pleased I am to hear that the Minister is a converted Blairite these days? In extolling the virtues of what he has done with the overseas territories, he has ignored the fact that none of us, including Treasury officials, knows who owns what company and what company structures are there, and therefore what moneys are around. That includes some of the big banks and state-owned banks.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who brings me on neatly to the next issue, which is registration of ownership. New clause 12(2) asks for a review of the effects of
“a global standard for public registration of ownership of companies and trusts via a convention on tax transparency”.
At the recent Lough Erne summit, the G8 leaders all committed to work internationally to ensure that tax collectors and law enforcers can easily obtain information about who really owns companies. That represents real progress in the UK’s aim to secure a substantial change in international tax transparency. That is an important point and something that we have been pressing. We have agreement from the overseas territories to develop their plans to ensure that there is access to information on beneficial ownership.
John Mann
I thank the Minister for generously giving way. We do not even know in this country about thousands of companies based here because inadequate returns are made to Companies House, which has neither the wherewithal nor, it would appear, the desire to do anything about that. How on earth is anyone meant to get on top of structures abroad when we are not even on top of corporate structures in this country?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman tempts me into an area that I am very much looking forward to debating with him on Thursday afternoon. He has secured a debate on that very subject, so perhaps I shall keep some of my powder dry for that occasion. The point that I am making is that the Government are making substantial progress in this area and we also have an international agenda, ensuring that other countries move as well, so that there is much more information about beneficial ownership. That is not to say that the job is done and that there are not challenges that we face, but we have made a great deal of progress, particularly at the recent Lough Erne summit. That should be acknowledged.
Returning to new clause 12, the final element takes us back to an issue that we have debated previously, which is a requirement on the Government to assess how UK companies could report avoidance of tax in developing countries and how assistance could be offered in the recovery of that tax.
Under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—regime, UK companies are already obliged to report to HMRC their use of tax avoidance schemes carrying certain hallmarks. That applies to avoidance schemes that have an impact on developing countries, but only where UK taxes are affected.
The Opposition’s new clause 12 effectively suggests that Her Majesty’s Government should require UK companies to report their use of tax schemes, so that developing countries’ tax authorities can be notified of tax avoidance schemes, and that the Government should assist them in recovering any tax lost. It is unlikely that HMRC will have sufficient understanding of the details of developing countries’ tax systems to enable it to do that.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate that we debated the issue at some length in Committee, but I should like to pick up on the Minister’s language: he stated that it was “unlikely” that HMRC would have sufficient information on developing countries’ taxation regimes. Will he clarify whether HMRC and the Treasury have undertaken an assessment? That is what the new clause is asking for. It is not asking whether they can do these things, but whether they will undertake an assessment of what they can do, and how they could do it.
Mr Gauke
I have certainly sought advice, in preparation for this and other debates, on how practicable it would be for HMRC to provide such a service. HMRC makes the point that it is not something that it is well set up to do; its expertise is on how the UK tax system works. It is also worth pointing out that DOTAS is based on hallmarks set by UK tax law. Trying to extend it in the way suggested would be very difficult. That would require a major change to a successful tool—the hon. Lady and I have debated this point before—for tackling tax avoidance, and would risk disrupting the effectiveness with which HMRC does its job. My answer to her is one that I have given in the past: I do not believe that this is something that HMRC could do effectively. It is not a good priority for us. All sides want to do more to help developing countries to develop their tax systems, but it is better to focus on building capacity by providing training and support than for HMRC to try to judge, police and assess the tax system in developing countries.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister perhaps betrayed the true answer at the end of his comments. His previous response sounded a bit “computer says no”; he said it was all very difficult and he did not believe it would be possible. However, he just said that it would not be a good use of HMRC resources. Does he not agree that a bit of transparency on the possibility of putting the clause into action would be of benefit, not only to Parliament, but to the public, so that it could understand the reasoning and how the conclusion was arrived at?
Mr Gauke
The reasoning remains what it always was. HMRC has a large number of specialists on the UK tax system, and the UK tax system does not apply in other countries. Assessing whether a particular arrangement constituted tax avoidance in Tanzania, to pluck a country at random, would require a detailed understanding of the Tanzanian tax system. If the hon. Lady is asking whether we could train up somebody to learn an awful lot about the Tanzanian tax system, in theory that could be done, but it would be a better use of HMRC resources to help train the Tanzanian tax authority, so that it was in a better position to collect the taxes that are due. Indeed, that is exactly what we do; we provide a lot of support to the Tanzanian tax authority.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister will recall our debates on this issue in Committee. I am afraid that I still do not buy the arguments that he makes, just as I did not buy them then. Does he not understand the disappointment felt by the many campaigners on this issue? The Enough Food for Everyone If campaign said that Treasury Ministers’ refusal to consider the amendments put forward in Committee, which are very similar to new clause 12, was shocking. There is a real contrast between the Prime Minister’s big words at the G8 and what is happening in practice. This is a reasonable new clause, and campaigners just do not buy the arguments.
Mr Gauke
It is not just me saying this, and there is no desire to be unhelpful. Indeed, the Government’s record on building up tax capacity in developing countries is very good, with regard to providing them with technical assistance so that they gain a better understanding of the tax that they could collect. Indeed, we are providing support to help developing countries to make greater use of the new information exchange positions.
I will again quote Richard Murphy, whose views on these matters tend to differ profoundly from mine. He works closely with the non-governmental organisations, and he has said:
“I admit, I have never seen how extending DOTAS internationally could work. I can’t see how HMRC could know if they got accurate data, or none at all and as such can see no way such a scheme could be enforced in which case I admit I can’t see how it could ever be workable.”
I do not often pray in aid Richard Murphy, but he makes that point not from any desire to limit the help that we provide to developing countries but as a matter of sheer practicality. He makes a reasonable point.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister certainly does not often pray in aid Richard Murphy. Indeed, I think this is the only thing that Richard Murphy has said that he agrees with, and he is using it to advance his argument. Will he acknowledge that all the elements of new clause 12 relate to information sharing and transparency? We are asking the Government to consider how they can improve information sharing and transparency and use DOTAS to that end, and it would be helpful if the Minister could focus his comments on that. I think that members of the public will struggle to understand why the Government are refusing even to consider that proposal.
Mr Gauke
It is important that our debates on these matters should not simply be about the expression of warm words. They should also be about working out what we can do at a practical level, and what will and will not work. I take the view that extending DOTAS will not be effective, but our response to the hon. Lady’s proposals should not be, “Oh, they are all terrible.” It should be to ask ourselves what would be effective. There is a lot that we can do that is effective. This is about capacity building. It is about ensuring that developing countries have the right information, and about bringing them into the existing web of treaties so that they can have access to more information. It is also about ensuring that multinationals provide information that is useful to tax authorities in order to ensure that the right amount of tax is collected and the tax authorities’ efforts can be focused in the right place. That is the agenda that we have been pursuing, with some success.
I am sympathetic to what new clause 12 is getting at, and I do not in any way doubt the motives behind it, but I do not believe that it is necessary. We are already leading international action on tax transparency and on the taxation of multinational companies, and I do not believe that the GARR, as drafted, is the right vehicle for tackling these issues. For those reasons, I urge Opposition Members not to press the new clause to a vote.
Catherine McKinnell
It is a pleasure to speak here today on these important issues. I shall focus particularly on those covered by amendment 56 and by new clause 12. First, however, I shall touch on new clauses 4 and 5, and on new schedules 1 and 2, which relate to measures announced in Budget 2013. Together, they introduce three separate rules to combat what the Minister describes as loss buying. That activity goes against the accepted concept that losses brought forward on or after a change in company ownership should be allowable for corporation tax relief to the company and to the trade in which they occurred.
The Government’s new clauses seek to strengthen the loss-buying rules, first by expanding the application of chapter 16A of part 2 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 so that it applies to “qualifying activities” and not just trades, as is currently the case. The other two rules introduced by the clauses are targeted anti-avoidance rules and will be included in a new part of the Corporation Tax Act 2010. As a consequence of the new clauses, companies will be prevented from entering into arrangements to access, as part of a business transfer, various forms of unrealised corporation tax losses from unconnected third parties. The Opposition support the introduction of these anti-avoidance measures, but it would be helpful if the Minister outlined, in response to this submission, what additional annual yield the Exchequer is expected to receive as a result of their introduction.
Before speaking specifically to the Opposition’s new clause 12, I would like to refer more generally to the Government’s general anti-abuse rule, which will be introduced by clauses 203 to 212, and take the opportunity to probe the Minister on its implementation, because it was last discussed in Committee of the whole House back in April. The Government have made much of the GAAR, their flagship policy for tackling tax avoidance, but, as the Minister knows, several serious concerns were raised about its likely impact, or lack thereof, during our debate in April.
We have been advised that the GAAR will target only “egregious”, “very aggressive” or “highly abusive” avoidance schemes, which the Bill defined as those that use “contrived or abnormal steps” to obtain a tax advantage. Yet the GAAR guidance’s definition of what those entirely subjective terms mean is inadequate. It states merely that they will be interpreted and applied in their “normal” sense. I do not know how Government Members would apply those terms in their normal sense, but I am interested to know whether Opposition Members would know how to apply those terms in their normal sense, given that we will be voting on that tomorrow when the Bill is considered on Third Reading.
Alison Seabeck
Indeed, but that is a whole separate debate. My hon. Friend makes a serious, sensible point.
In this recession, we really cannot afford to allow those billions to disappear. Nor should we allow those developing countries to lose out so substantially. We need to work closely with other Governments to bring consistency into the process and, in doing so, ensure that doing the right thing in taxation terms is given value. We need transparency so that the public can take more informed decisions about the products they buy and from whom they buy them. I hope that those Members on the Government Benches who have been toying with the idea of supporting new clause 12 will see the sense in getting justice into the taxation system, and that they will support the new clause.
Mr Gauke
We have had a thorough debate. I do not intend to reprise all my earlier arguments, but I want to pick up some of the points that hon. Members have raised. The issue of the yield for the loss-buying rule was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). It is around £200 million a year, but there is a more precise breakdown available in the tax information and impact note.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the general anti-abuse rule—the GAAR—which is expected to raise around £235 million over the next five years. It will also protect revenue that would otherwise be lost. We believe that it will change the avoidance landscape as its impact starts to be recognised. It will act as a deterrent to those tempted to engage in abusive avoidance schemes, and where those schemes persist, the GAAR will give HMRC the means to tackle them and to secure payment of the right amount of tax.
We have accepted the proposal from Graham Aaronson that a narrowly targeted GAAR is the right approach to tackling the persistent problem of abusive avoidance schemes. This has to be viewed in the context of the fact that the previous Government did not bring in a general anti-abuse rule. We believe that a broader rule would be likely to generate considerable uncertainty, which could lessen the attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business, and generate significant cost for HMRC. We are not complacent, however, and we will continue vigorously to tackle all forms of tax avoidance. Indeed, the Bill will close 10 loopholes, and the Budget announced further reviews of tax law that is being exploited for avoidance.
Simply because a scheme is not caught by the GAAR will not mean that it is okay. The GAAR will not set the boundary for tax avoidance. It deliberately targets abusive avoidance schemes, but HMRC will continue to tackle all forms of tax avoidance using the full range of tools available. As for the argument that we will not need targeted anti-avoidance rules in future, we believe that it would be reckless to remove a central protection against avoidance without being fully confident that doing so would not create risks. Although we expect the proposed GAAR to be effective in tackling and deterring abusive tax avoidance schemes, it might take time for those who engage in persistent avoidance to accept that their schemes do not work, so there will still be a need to retain existing anti-avoidance provisions and amend other legislation that provides unintended tax planning opportunities that are not within the scope of the GAAR.
Multinational Companies and UK Corporation Tax
David Gauke Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We have had a short but useful debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing it and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Rightly, this issue has received much greater scrutiny in recent months. The public anger is understandable and not surprising, given that difficult decisions are being made on the public finances and the vast majority of people pay the taxes they owe, and the perception is that some companies are not contributing their fair share or complying with the law.
We should say at the outset, and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) was right to say, that there can be occasions where it is entirely legitimate for a company not to be paying corporation tax if it is making use of reliefs or capital allowances in the way that Parliament intended. It is also the case—there can be confusion about this—that corporation tax is a tax on profits, not a tax on sales. It is also worth remembering that we do collect significant sums of corporation tax from large businesses. But where the public’s concerns are justified, where there is avoidance, by which I mean contrived and artificial behaviour contrary to Parliament’s intention, that is a very serious matter and it is right that we take action.
There is an issue of administration. The point has been raised about HMRC’s effectiveness in dealing with tax avoidance by large businesses. I should explain that HMRC works, with regard to large businesses, by putting in place CRMs—customer relationship managers. Their role is essentially to man-mark the most complex and high-risk taxpayers. In recent years that approach has proved to be effective in getting money in. HMRC secured £8 billion of additional compliance yield from large businesses in 2012-13, and more than £23 billion in the past three years. It is an approach that has been endorsed by the OECD. One of the difficulties that HMRC has is that it is bound by taxpayer confidentiality. It cannot give a running commentary to this House on the action that it takes, but the numbers demonstrate that HMRC is effective in getting money in.
Margaret Hodge
Why has HMRC not taken one case against any internet company?
Mr Gauke
Neither the right hon. Lady nor I know what action HMRC has taken with regard to individual companies. What we do know is that it has got billions of pounds in additional yield as a consequence of the action that it takes with large businesses as a whole. With reference to HMRC’s performance across the board, additional yield is being achieved year after year, and this Government have provided resources to increase the yield on evasion and avoidance.
One other constraint on HMRC is that it can collect only the tax that is due under the law, and there is an issue here because very often the law that applies to large businesses encompasses international law, OECD arrangements and what is set out in double taxation agreements. The point was raised about the definition of “permanent establishment”. That is set out not just in domestic legislation, but in international law. We have led the way in encouraging the OECD to look at what needs to be done to improve the international situation, to make sure that the base erosion and profit-shifting work can ensure that the tax rules are all up to date for the internet world.
We have had a very short debate, and in this very short speech and the time available to me I cannot do justice to all the points that were raised. Let me say in conclusion that HMRC has robust methods in place to ensure that tax compliance by the biggest businesses occurs, and the numbers support that. We have used our international position to make sure that there is progress in bringing international tax law up to date to reflect the current position. We have a Government who are committed to ensuring that large corporates pay the tax that is due.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Gauke Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the effect on living costs of changes to the personal allowance.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It was announced in Budget 2013 that the Government would increase the annual personal allowance by a further £560 to £10,000 in April 2014, thus meeting a key coalition commitment a year ahead of schedule. By that date, as a result of the combined effects of all personal allowance increases under this Government, a typical basic-rate taxpayer will have gained by more than £700 a year in cash terms.
John Howell
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way of tackling this issue is to put cash into people’s pockets, and that taking 2.7 million people out of tax altogether is an excellent way in which to proceed?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
If everything is better for the average family, why did the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that the average family was £891 worse off? Was the IFS wrong?
Mr Gauke
We do not accept those figures. What I will say is that we have been prepared to tackle the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. We have taken measures to put the public finances back on a sustainable footing, with no help from the Labour party, which has opposed every measure that we have taken to do that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have taken 3,000 low-income people out of tax altogether in my constituency, and have cut taxes for 40,000 low-income residents? Is this not a Government who are on the side of the poor?
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Money in people’s pockets is one thing, but since the financial crash, food prices have increased by 18% compared with inflation of 13%. It is not just a question of the money in people’s pockets; it is also a question of what they have to pay when they go to the shops. Does the Minister really believe that families in my constituency feel that they are better off?
Mr Gauke
It is because of the need to deal with the cost of living that we have taken measures such as controlling increases in council tax. That is why fuel duty is lower than it was in the plans that we inherited, and why we have taken the measures that we have taken in regard to the personal allowance. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is muttering about VAT. Let us be clear about this. Labour Members did not vote against VAT; then they said they were against VAT. Last week they said that they would not change VAT; now the shadow Chancellor is complaining about VAT. It is just chaos and confusion from the Labour party.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
5. What recent steps he has taken to increase the level of infrastructure investment.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
14. How many jobs have been created in the private sector since 2010.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Private sector employment has been growing robustly, with 1.3 million jobs created in the sector since the start of 2010. At Budget 2013, we announced the £2,000 employment allowance, which will support businesses aspiring to grow by hiring their first employee or expanding their work force. Businesses will be able to employ four adults or 10 18 to 20-year-olds full time on the national minimum wage without paying any employer national insurance contributions at all.
Laura Sandys
Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of an enterprise zone and a regional growth fund that has been supporting jobs in my area following the Pfizer closure, and which the Chancellor very kindly opened, has delivered 750 new jobs in one year? We hope to be announcing a further 200 jobs in the next couple of weeks. Does that sound like a private sector success?
Simon Wright
The 2010 autumn statement confirmed the dualling of the A11, raising investor confidence in Norwich as a destination for growth. May I urge Treasury Ministers to be similarly bold in their spending review in relation to the A47, where investment has the potential to create up to 10,000 more jobs for the region?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
How many jobs will high-speed rail create?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Following the success of last week’s G8 summit, Northern Ireland is now looking forward to the international investment conference in October. Will the Treasury work closely with the Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that we maximise private sector investment in Northern Ireland, both in 2013 and 2014?
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
9. What his Department’s estimate is of the likely level of public sector net debt as a share of GDP in 2015-16.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
In January 2013 a new income tax charge was introduced to reduce or remove the financial benefit of receiving child benefit for those on high incomes. For taxpayers with incomes between £50,000 and £60,000, the amount of the charge is a proportion of the child benefit received. For taxpayers with income above £60,000, the amount of the charge is equal to the amount of child benefit received. Eighty-five per cent. of families with children continue to benefit in full from child benefit. Entitlement to child benefit payments remains universal and will continue to be paid to all those who claim it.
Richard Graham
I am delighted to hear about the savings that will be achieved, especially given that those of us who supported them were told by the Labour party that they would destroy the universal principle, and that they were complicated, unfair and unworkable. It now appears that they are workable, and the Opposition have accepted that they will not change the policy. Will my hon. Friend share with us what vital provision of services those savings can achieve, and will he also consider means-testing the winter fuel allowance?
Mr Gauke
There is a substantial saving to the Exchequer through child benefit. It was not that long ago when the Leader of the Opposition said that millionaires should receive child benefit because
“it’s a cornerstone of our system to have universal benefits”.
It appears that that is no longer the case, although all we have is briefing. On winter fuel payments, the Prime Minister made it clear that they would continue in the course of this Parliament and we will fulfil that commitment.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We remain committed to introducing video games tax relief as soon as possible and we are working with the industry to provide the Commission with the evidence that it needs to conclude its investigation quickly. These things can take a little time, but we have a history of succeeding in implementing new and innovative forms of state aid.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
T3. Since the Chancellor’s last spending review the US economy has grown four times faster than the UK’s. Is this not further evidence of the Chancellor’s failed policies?
Double Taxation Convention and Protocol (Netherlands)
David Gauke Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
A double taxation convention and protocol with respect to bank taxes with the Netherlands was signed on 12 June 2013. The text of the convention and protocol has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and will be made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text will be annexed as a schedule to a Treasury Order and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
A protocol amending the double taxation convention with respect to taxes on income and on capital gains with the Netherlands was also signed on 12 June 2013. The text of the protocol has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and will be 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.
Stamp Duty Land Tax (Avoidance Scheme)
David Gauke Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are today tabling an amendment to Finance Bill 2013 to put beyond doubt that a particular stamp duty land tax (SDLT) avoidance scheme is ineffective. The scheme uses the SDLT transfer of rights rules to avoid SDLT on the purchase of UK land. The legislation will have effect from 21 March 2012.
Because of repeated avoidance in this area, at Budget 2012 the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that he would not hesitate to use retrospective legislation to close down future SDLT avoidance schemes.
Acting on this warning it was announced at Budget 2013 that legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill to close down two schemes, which use the transfer of rights rules, with effect from the date of the Chancellor’s warning, 21 March 2012.
Since then a further transfer of rights scheme has been identified. The Government do not accept that the scheme has the effect intended but to remove any doubt, prompt action is being taken to protect the Exchequer.
Given the Chancellor’s clear warning last year and the announcement at Budget 2013 of retrospective legislation to close down similar transfer of rights schemes, if should have been obvious to both promoters and users of this scheme that it could be subject to retrospective action.
An updated tax information and impact note and guidance note are available on the HMRC website.