Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Rehman Chishti

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T2. What steps are the Government taking to support economic growth in Medway through investment in transport infrastructure, such as the lower Thames crossing and roads, and help for small businesses?

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

The Government are taking forward plans for the lower Thames crossing and major road upgrades, such as at junction 5 on the M2. We are also establishing a Thames estuary 2050 growth commission, which will set out a vision for development in the area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Rehman Chishti

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Let me address our record. We have spent £18 billion since 2010 on the school estate and we are committed to a further £23 billion so that pupils can be taught in facilities that are fit for the 21st century. We of course want to ensure that that is funded in the most appropriate, value for money and sustainable way.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to support regional infrastructure development.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Debate between David Gauke and Rehman Chishti

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), but I must then make some progress.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I of course welcome all that the Government have done on tackling tax avoidance and evasion. He says that more could be done on tax avoidance, but does he accept that, following the comments of the former Labour Foreign Secretary and Lord Chancellor, who said that the Labour Government could have taken but did not take action on tax avoidance and the previous Labour Government’s deficit, the Government are playing catch up?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to draw those remarks to the attention of the House. We have done a great deal on tax avoidance, but more can always be done and I will set out how we are doing that, working through the OECD.

Tax Fairness

Debate between David Gauke and Rehman Chishti

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I take it from what the hon. Gentleman says that rather than raise the personal allowance, he would prefer us to spend more on the welfare bill. If that is the hon. Gentleman’s position, fair enough, but I do not agree. Raising the personal allowance, taking people out of income tax, and making sure that work pays, are all things that a sensible Government should do, and I am delighted that this coalition Government are able to do that.

I come now to the taxation of those on highest incomes, on which we have already touched. The top 1% of taxpayers, those with incomes of over £150,000 a year, will pay more than a quarter of all income tax, while the top 5% of taxpayers, those with income of £68,000 or more, will pay nearly half of income tax. We agree that it is important that we create a tax system that ensures that those who earn the most contribute the most, but it is also important that we create a tax system that works. Among other things, that means a tax system that does not damage our economy by undermining our international competitiveness.

The Government inherited a top rate of tax at 50p, a rate that our predecessors, who this afternoon have painted themselves as the party of taxing the rich more, had put in place for just 36 of their 4,758 days in power. The rate that they left us with was the highest top rate among major economies. The last Labour Chancellor had made it clear that it was temporary. It was also very clear that it was having an immediate impact on our competitiveness.

Let me say something that I hope is not controversial: the principal purpose of income tax is to raise revenue. So we commissioned HMRC to analyse just how effective the 50p rate was in raising revenue.

That HMRC report, laid before the House, set out thorough and compelling evidence on the impact of the 50p rate. It showed that the rate was uncompetitive, distortive and inefficient. Not only did it not raise much revenue, but it could even have cost the Exchequer money when the indirect impacts on other taxes were taken into account. This Government were not prepared to maintain a rate of income tax that was both ineffective at raising money and that left us with the highest statutory rate of income tax in the G20, so we acted, in the interests of the country, and the top rate of tax will fall to 45p from April this year. This will see our top rate of tax drop below that of Australia, Germany, Japan and Canada, which will send a signal to businesses taking decisions on investment and location that the UK is a competitive environment.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Has the Minister seen the KPMG report that states that Britain’s competitiveness is better than that of Switzerland and the United States and that that is a consequence of the measures taken by the Government?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point in the context of the changes we have made to our corporate tax system. In 2009 KPMG commissioned a survey of tax professionals, asking them to name the three most competitive countries. The UK was nominated by just 16% of respondents. In 2012 KPMG undertook the same survey and the UK was nominated by 72% of respondents. That is a dramatic change, which we are proud of, and it will help our economy grow. We have also had the courage to reduce the 50p rate, which will help our competitiveness, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Rehman Chishti

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It may come as a surprise to Opposition Members, but an entire Government are capable of working together. That was not the experience when the Treasury was being run by the current shadow Chancellor.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the size of the structural deficit.