Taxation of Pensions Bill

Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and David Gauke

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The Financial Conduct Authority has already made it clear that if, for example, anyone attempts to present themselves as providing guidance under the guidance guarantee when they are not in a position to do so, that will be looked at very seriously. There is a strong determination to ensure that the dishonest, the unscrupulous and those seeking to mislead people are treated very seriously indeed. We are talking, after all, about a regulated sector, and those who try to conduct regulated activities who are not properly regulated already face offences. I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about whether we are determined to address those who try to defraud our constituents. Yes, we are absolutely determined to address that, and the FCA is very engaged in that process.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I, too, would like to press the Minister on the issue of consumer protection. At the moment, if someone gets bad advice from a financial adviser, they have a degree of protection through the FCA. If people receive advice from those who are not professionals in financial matters—the Minister has conceded that these are complex matters—what comeback will they have?

[Mr Gauke]

As I say, the FCA is very engaged in this area and has already set out its determination to ensure that those seeking to mislead face punishment. The FCA has responsibility for ensuring that regulated firms treat their customers fairly and communicate in a way that is clear and not misleading. We believe that it has considerable powers here. Of course, the Pension Schemes Bill is also important in ensuring that the FCA puts in place standards for the guidance guarantee—standards that anyone delivering that service must comply with.

Finance Bill

Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and David Gauke

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Before the Minister fully leaves the point about how people might spend the lump sums, one concern that I have had is that people might be tempted to invest in property, for example, which could have the unintended consequence of boosting an already overheating housing market for the next generation. That is still prudent spending from those people’s point of view, but there could be unintended consequences for everyone else. I wonder to what extent that consideration featured in the Government’s thinking.

[Mr Gauke]

There are two points to make. First, we believe that individuals should be able to make their own choices. Of course, they should be provided with guidance, but essentially a system that relies on the state telling people precisely what their investment portfolio, as it were, should be is too restrictive, and does not perform the role that we should be performing. As for the systemic effect on the housing market, which was, I think, the hon. Lady’s central point, I do not think that our changes will have any such effect. Both the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made it clear that we need to ensure that we do not return to the bad old days and to the unsustainable housing market boom we saw some years ago. There are measures in place to reflect that, and we have the institutions in place to ensure that if there are problems they can be addressed quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

As always, the hon. Gentleman’s questions are interesting and could take me in a number of directions. Let me just say this: it is important that the United Kingdom has a competitive tax system. It is the case that corporation tax will continue to play an important part in our tax system, and it is important that it is properly enforced. Indeed, the UK is leading the way on international reform to ensure that we have an international tax system that takes a contribution from companies. In the end, however, it is always individuals who pay tax—whether it is the shareholder, consumer or employee. All tax is paid by people even if the cheque is written by the company.

Let me return to the measures that we have set out. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the measure to extend the AIA is expected to bring forward another £1 billion of business investment in the short and medium term. Although the Government rightly keep all tax policy under review, there is limited merit in conducting an evaluation in the way that the amendment suggests, and there are also a number of obstacles that make it impossible. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not have the relevant data to conduct such an evaluation for another year, and as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said, it would be extremely difficult to isolate the impact of this change from the other factors influencing business investment, and from subsequent changes, in the ex-post data.

An important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who said that a number of factors are involved in business investment, not least confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) pointed out, the AIA has been set at various levels over this period; identifying a direct link between the level of AIA and business investment is extremely difficult.

[Dr Whiteford]

The Minister is quite right to point out that there have been dramatic fluctuations in these types of allowances over a long period, but surely that emphasises the point about trying to get better at assessing their impact. If these allowances are a good thing at the moment, the Government might be well advised to consider bringing some stability to the system and committing to them over a slightly longer period.

[Mr Gauke]

The point I was making is that it was this Government who introduced a corporate tax road map in 2010. That road map has provided a great deal of certainty to businesses and set out our plans for corporation tax. Given that we have been able to make progress with corporation tax rates in the current circumstances, although businesses feel uncertain about the challenges that lie ahead, including the referendum in Scotland and the possibility that an anti-business Government might be elected at the next general election, it would be helpful to have an annual investment allowance in place.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and David Gauke

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I recognise that not everyone wants to address the matter and that there are those who do not want to change the position whereby people earning £20,000 or £25,000 a year are paying taxes to fund child benefit for substantially wealthier families, and I realise that arguments are made to defend that. But if we are to do something about it, we have a choice. Do we do this through a tax credit system, which means putting everybody through that system, and doing it on a household basis, or do we try to find an alternative way of doing it that reduces the administrative demands? I do not deny that there is complexity in this method, but relatively, we believe that this is the simpler way of doing it.

[Dr Whiteford]

It is misleading to insinuate that poorer families are subsidising better-off families. If there is a need to address income inequalities, why should people who have children pay the price of that rather than people who do and do not have children according to their means?

[Mr Gauke]

The only benefit received by those in the top 10% of earners, which includes all of us, is child benefit, if they have children. That is the only benefit that we receive, so it is the only one that can be reduced or withdrawn. That is why we have this approach. It is perfectly fair that steps are taken to remove child benefit from those households that contain people in the top 10%.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and David Gauke

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I understand the views expressed by my hon. Friend. There are a number of changes and developments in this area, not least the powers in the Bill. I agree with him that this will continue to be a live issue, but at this stage I am not in a position to make any promises to him. However, I am sure that this issue will continue to be debated, and strong views will be expressed. I can understand the points he makes, but this is not the time for a legislative solution.

Amendment 23, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, is consequential on new clause 8 and would delay the financial provisions in part 3 of the Bill coming into force until two months after the House passes a resolution approving the Chancellor’s proposals for a new funding formula. It would then automatically bring part 3 into force two months after such a resolution. I set out why I did not consider it appropriate to debate at this time a new funding formula for Scotland when I discussed new clause 8. The Government are clear that this is a UK-wide administrative procedure and therefore has no place in the Bill. The Government’s priority is to stabilise the public finances and reduce the deficit before making any changes to the Barnett formula, as I have said.

Even were we able to accept new clause 8, the manner of commencement set out would be problematic because it would create technical problems by potentially bringing in consequential amendments relating to the Scottish variable rate before that itself had been repealed. I am sure that that is not what the right hon. Gentleman intends. The new clause would have other consequences, however. It would mean that clause 32, on borrowing provisions, could not be brought into force until an agreement had been reached on a new funding formula for Scotland. As I have set out, the changes introduced by the Bill are not contingent on a new funding formula being agreed to replace the Barnett formula, so I do not see the need to wait to introduce the borrowing clauses until such a new formula has been agreed.

Amendments 25 and 37, and new clauses 9 and 19, relate to corporation tax and alcohol duties. These amendments propose to increase the power in the Bill to provide for an Order in Council specifying corporation tax and alcohol duties as devolved duties. The Scottish Government have publicly requested that six additional powers be included in the Bill, including powers over corporation tax and alcohol duties. I understand that the First Minister has met colleagues in the Government to highlight those requests. In those meetings, the First Minister agreed to provide detailed written analysis of the benefits to both Scotland and the UK of devolving those powers. No such papers have yet been provided. We await them with interest, because we have yet to hear the case made in detail.

As hon. Members will recall, the Government are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Calman commission, which considered the merits of devolution for a wide range of taxes and decided that neither corporation tax nor alcohol duties were suitable candidates for devolution. Calman concluded that the potential administrative impact of devolving either tax would be significant. The creation of compliance costs for businesses operating on either side of the border, as well as the increased collection costs for the Government, would be undesirable, especially in the present economic climate. The risks of tax avoidance and arbitrage could also be increased, with additional costs to the Government and the UK Exchequer. These arguments apply to both corporation tax and alcohol duties.

Calman also noted that if comparable levels of public services were to be maintained, the scope for substantive reductions in the rate of corporation tax in Scotland would be limited, unless the Scottish Government were willing significantly to increase revenues from other sources, such as income tax. The figures involved could be significant. For instance, if we take the Scottish Government’s estimate of the corporation tax base, published in their “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” report, and apply the methodologies developed for the Government’s paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy, the cost of reducing Scottish corporation tax to 12.5%—the current rate in the Republic of Ireland—would be just over £2 billion. However, the Scottish economy is very different, not least in the presence of many large multinationals, particularly from the financial sector, whose current activity is unlikely to be adequately covered in the gross value added estimate, but whose profits are additionally likely to be attributable to Scotland with regard to corporation tax.

Provisional HMRC analysis has indicated that losing payments from large Scottish-domiciled groups could add £600 million to the direct costs. Such tax cuts would have to be funded, either by significantly reduced levels of public spending in Scotland or by tax rises in other areas. It is worth noting that these are initial estimates, and are likely significantly to underestimate the scope for profit shifting to Scotland. The model uses similar assumptions to those applied to the costing for Northern Ireland. However, given the geographic proximity of England and Scotland, the integrated infrastructure, the large number of big GB-owned groups with a substantive presence on both sides of the border, and the relatively large and complex nature of the Scottish economy, there are likely to be greater opportunities for groups to shift profits there than may be the case for Northern Ireland.

In addition, corporation tax is a very volatile tax, and would create much more revenue risk for the Scottish budget. For instance, corporate tax receipts fell by 16% from 2008-09 to 2009-10, while income tax receipts fell by 5%. Such a large volatile income stream would place great risk on the Scottish budget. Income tax, which is more predictable and less volatile, is a much more suitable candidate for devolution. The commission based its decision on the strong evidence that it received from the independent expert group and the alcohol retailing and production sector. The evidence identified increased compliance costs and significant scope for tax avoidance, given the mobility of goods such as beer, wine, cider and spirits.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

My recollection is that the Calman commission refused to rule out devolving corporation tax, should that happen in other parts of the UK. Perhaps my recollection is wrong, but it would be a mistake to misrepresent in this debate what the Calman commission actually said.

[Mr Gauke]

The Calman commission did not recommend devolving corporation tax as substantial practical profit shifting issues would arise, and we cannot ignore the fact that it would need to be paid for. This is not something that we could all sit round in a room negotiating, before coming up with a number. To comply with the Azores judgment, made under European law, it would be necessary to identify the precise number. I should also make it clear that the cost of any reduction in corporation tax would have to be met by increased alternative taxes or a reduction in the block grant.

[Dr Whiteford]

It is important to differentiate the substantive point of whether this Government support devolving corporation tax from what the Calman commission report actually said. Having found it—I think—I can tell the Minister that the Calman commission recognised that

“changes to Corporation Tax can be a tool for economic development,”

and did not

“rule out a scheme for devolving Corporation Tax in the future as part of wider reform across the devolved nations.”

Does the Minister accept that that is actually what was in the Calman commission report?

[Mr Gauke]

But the Calman commission did not say that that was the right way forward at this point. As I have said, some very substantial issues would need to be addressed, not least the opportunity for profit shifting and the impact on the UK Exchequer were Scotland to have a lower rate of corporation tax, as businesses operating in Scotland and England would shift their profits to Scotland, which would disadvantage the UK as a whole.

Fuel Costs

Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and David Gauke

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I will turn to the stabiliser in a moment. My hon. Friend has touched on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) also raised, which is the deficit that we face. It is only by coming up with a credible plan to balance the books that we have managed to create the confidence needed for a recovery. To get there, we have had to make some tough decisions, such as raising certain taxes, including VAT, and cutting public expenditure in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party to all our plans.

One of the few things that we inherited that would reduce the deficit were the previous Government’s plans to increase fuel duty. We heard quite a lot from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), about VAT. It is worth pointing out that the Labour Budgets of 2009 and 2010 involved the following increases in fuel duty: in September 2009, there was a 2p increase; in 2010, there was a 2.76p increase; and there are 1p increases in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. In total, the increase is about 9p a litre. We cannot dismiss those increases without knowing how we can fund any shortfall.

As the Prime Minister said over the weekend, we

“would love to see tax reductions…but when you’re borrowing 11% of your GDP, it’s not possible.”

So although I sympathise with the points made by hon. Members from all parts of the House, our decisions on tax must be viewed in that context, where every penny we increase fuel duty by raises an additional £500 million and if we cut fuel duty, that money will have to come from somewhere else.

[Dr Whiteford]

I ask the Minister the question that I have asked repeatedly in this debate: why should people who live in rural areas pay a disproportionate share of fuel taxation?

[Mr Gauke]

The two particular areas we have debated today are the fuel stabiliser and the rural fuel duty rebate, which this House has debated on a number of occasions and is clearly of close interest to a number of hon. Members. The Government have made no secret of the fact that we are considering such a rebate. People in rural areas do face particular challenges on petrol and diesel, as fuel prices there tend to be more expensive because of relatively high transport costs—a number of hon. Members have made that point. A lack of alternatives means that people in rural communities have little or no choice but to use the car, which is why we have announced our intention to introduce a rural fuel duty pilot. It will deliver a duty discount of up to 5p a litre on all petrol and diesel which, as the Economic Secretary said at the start of today’s debate, would save some drivers in rural areas upwards of £500 a year.