National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Jim McGovern and David Gauke

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the measures. It is worth noting the considerable progress made on apprenticeships under this Government. We have created 2 million apprenticeships during this Parliament; they are giving young people the skills they need to succeed in the global race and get on in life. That is significant progress—progress on the number of apprenticeships has been considerably faster than was previously expected. For example, the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said in 2008 that he intended to have 90,000 more young people taking part in apprenticeships by 2013. He said that, together with opportunities for those in their 20s and older, that would mean 220,000 people starting an apprenticeship each year overall. In 2011-12, 520,000 people started an apprenticeship, so we can see that there has been dramatic progress. The measure helps us to pursue that policy yet further.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

I am intrigued as to how the Minister will define an apprenticeship these days. I was an apprentice in the construction industry. I served a four-year apprenticeship from the age of 16 to the age of 20. My father had to sign my indentures to say that I was indentured to that company, and possibly sold into slavery in a way. What is an apprenticeship these days? The Minister talks about half a million new apprenticeships, but are they apprenticeships as I understand them?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) about who will qualify for the relief. As I have remarked, we are taking a power to define apprenticeships. Given that this is a devolved matter, it is important that we discuss it with the devolved Administrations. We want to support apprenticeships and will seek to achieve a broad definition for the purposes of the relief. However, the apprenticeship system across the UK is complex and evolving. Education and training is a devolved matter. Apprenticeships operate slightly differently in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and there are differences between Government-funded apprenticeships and independent employer schemes. The Government will discuss the definition of “an apprentice” with the Skills Funding Agency and its devolved equivalents before committing ourselves to a final definition. It is important that the definition is robust, satisfying minimum compliance standards while achieving the objective of supporting the provision of apprenticeships to the under-25s.

In terms of overall support for apprenticeships, the Government have done a great deal. We spend about £1.5 billion annually to support apprenticeship training. In Budget 2014, £170 million of additional funding was made available for apprenticeship grants for employers in 2014-16, providing a grant of up to £1,500 per apprentice for small businesses. The new budget will fund more than 100,000 additional incentive payments for employers to take on young apprentices.

It is also worth pointing out that in 2012 the National Audit Office recognised the strengths of the Government’s apprenticeship programme, highlighting how it continued to be valued by learners and businesses. It concluded that public spending on apprenticeships offered a good return, estimated at £18 for each £1 of Government investment. Evidence from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills suggests that returns may be higher, at £28 for every £1 of Government investment. I hope Members will resist the temptation to criticise the substantial progress that has been made on apprenticeships over the course of this Parliament. It has been significant.

On the definition of apprentices, which I touched on earlier, there will need to be discussion with the devolved Administrations and the Skills Funding Agency. We want a robust definition, but we have to bear in mind the complexities in this area.

On eligibility, for a business to be eligible to work with training providers to create an apprenticeship programme, the employer offering an apprenticeship needs to employ an apprentice for a minimum of 30 hours per week, pay at least the national minimum wage for apprentices, support on-the-job learning and be involved in reviewing their progress. On the question raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood regarding manipulation, I would make the point that those safeguards are in the system.

One further point I believe is important is that, as the Government are doing with employment allowance and under-21s from April this year and as we did when we came to office and increased the threshold before employer national insurance contributions is paid, we have done a great deal to reduce the burden on businesses of employer national insurance contributions. That has helped in creating the substantial progress in employment we have seen in recent years. Had we pursued the policy we inherited—an increase in the jobs tax—we would not have seen that progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim McGovern and David Gauke

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who performed the role of Financial Secretary with great distinction, that in his time in office there were no measures to reduce business rates in the way that we have done in the last two autumn statements by putting in place a cap of 2%, bringing in a rebate for retailers and extending small business rate relief. This Government have an excellent record on business rates—a message that I am sure many hon. Members heard on small business Saturday at the weekend.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

6. What estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of the amount of uncollected tax in the UK.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

14. What estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of the amount of uncollected tax in the UK.

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

HMRC published its latest tax gap estimates on 16 October 2014. The tax gap in 2012-13 was estimated to be £34 billion, which was 6.8% of the total tax due.

[Jim McGovern]

Last week in the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced plans to address tax avoidance. If he and the Treasury are serious about that, why did they vote down an amendment that said that the quoted eurobond—I am sorry, but I cannot quite remember the words. They did not support that amendment, costing this country £500 million per year.

[Mr Gauke]

The reason we have not pursued that policy is that, having looked at it carefully, we do not believe that it would raise anything like the revenue that has been suggested, nor that it would do anything for the UK’s competitiveness. The Government have consistently taken action on tax avoidance, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning. I would happily list the measures, Mr Speaker, but I suspect that you would not allow me the time to do so. By 2015-16, we believe that those measures will be bringing in £7.6 billion a year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim McGovern and David Gauke

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

I am sure the Chancellor and his Front-Bench colleagues will be aware of the recent Scottish Affairs Committee report on the computer games industry in the UK, which states that there are “compelling reasons” for introducing tax relief. Will he tell me, the House and people in my constituency, where the industry is very important, just what progress has been made?

[Mr Gauke]

That industry, like other industries, will benefit from the policies that we have introduced to ensure that we grow more strongly and have pro-business policies. On video games tax relief, we looked at it and did not feel that it achieved good value for money for the taxpayer.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Jim McGovern and David Gauke

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim McGovern]

On the subject of retrospective taxation, the previous Government committed to tax breaks for the computer games industry. Will the coalition Government commit to introducing tax breaks for the computer games industry retrospectively to April 2010?

[Mr Gauke]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that that is entirely in order. I am sure the Chair would not want me to be diverted into that matter.

I assure hon. Members that the Treasury is not seeking a general power to impose retrospective legislation. I am not in a position to predict what consequential changes might be needed to other legislation because of future finance or other Acts in relation to the Scottish rate of income tax. The period of potential retrospection is rightly restricted to the start of the tax year in which the order is made, so that if we need to make a consequential change it can take effect at the same time as the provision to which it is consequential. To do otherwise would create complexities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The ordinary meaning of the main place of residence is set out in case law. It is not necessarily determined by the number of days one spends at a location. To use the example of my hon. Friend’s father, if a commuter has his family home in Hamilton and stays there every weekend, although he might spend more time at work in London, Hamilton would be his main residence. HMRC guidance will provide a number of worked examples of that. I am reluctant to give too much information that could constitute specific advice, as I obviously cannot comment on individual cases, but I hope that that is helpful.

[Jim McGovern]

I presume, and hope, that the Minister has discussed what he is talking about with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

[Mr Gauke]

I will come to condition C in a moment, which I hope will provide the hon. Gentleman with the answer that he and others are looking for.

Having dealt with condition A, it would be remiss of me not to address condition B. It is possible for some people with two or more places of residence in the UK to be unable decide which is their main place of residence. I do not think that that applies to Mr Stewart senior, but it might apply in some cases. It is for such people that condition B has been designed. Someone who cannot determine under condition A which part of the UK they have a close connection with will need to count the number of days they spend in Scotland, compared with the number of days they spend elsewhere in the UK—in other words, a straightforward day count test. If they spend more days in Scotland than they do elsewhere in the UK, they will be a Scottish taxpayer. If they spend more days elsewhere in the UK than they do in Scotland, they will not be a Scottish taxpayer. We recognise that it might be onerous in some cases to have to keep a day count record, but the number of people within that category should be relatively few.

To deal with one question that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) raised, for the purposes of the day count, an individual has spent a day in Scotland or in any part of the UK when they are present at the end of the day—in other words, at the stroke of midnight. That is consistent with the existing and long-standing rules that determine presence in the UK for the purposes of tax residence.

Condition C, which I suspect is of particular interest to a number of hon. Members, is set out in proposed new section 80D of the 1998 Act and is very straightforward. If someone represents a Scottish constituency in the Scottish, UK or European Parliaments for any part of the year, they will be a Scottish taxpayer for that tax year, provided of course they are UK resident, which I assume will generally be the case. The definition has also been designed in such a way that an individual will be a Scottish taxpayer for a full year. They cannot be a Scottish taxpayer for part of the year and not a Scottish taxpayer for the rest of the year. That again helps to reduce unnecessary complexity in applying the definition and understanding of whether or not an individual is a Scottish taxpayer.

It is envisaged that the new Scottish rate of income tax will first be applied from 6 April 2016, as we have already heard. There are more than five years before the provisions take effect, and during that time we will continue to discuss with businesses, employers, taxpayer representatives, charities and software providers the necessary practical steps to achieve a successful implementation. The measure will need to work successfully throughout the UK tax system, as it will not impact on Scottish taxpayers or on Scottish employers alone.

HMRC has therefore established three technical groups with representatives throughout the UK, including a pensions group, charities group and an income tax group. Those groups are reporting to the high-level implementation group, which the Secretary of State and I established last summer. We are discussing with the technical groups the implementation issues—for example, the application of differing rates throughout the UK on tax relief for contributions to pension schemes and on gift aid. It is also conceivable, given the lead time to implementation, that there might be changes in the business or tax environment or to processes.

As we discussed when considering the earlier amendments, the clause includes a number of supplementary powers to allow certain modifications to be made at a later date—for example, enabling certain types of income or relief to be included or excluded from the Scottish rate to provide the flexibility to respond to stakeholder input and to the changing environment.

I shall pick up on some of the questions that I have not dealt with in my explanation, which I hope the Committee has found helpful. A worker who spends significant amounts of time on an offshore oil rig or another place of work off the UK coastline will not usually need to count the number of days they spend there to determine whether they are a Scottish taxpayer. The oil rig is not likely to be their sole or main place of residence in the UK, so any time spent on it can be disregarded when deciding whether they are a Scottish taxpayer. The only exception is if the location of the individual’s main place of residence is genuinely unclear. In such cases, whether someone is a Scottish taxpayer will be determined by the day count. If the oil rig is in Scotland, those days will need to be included for the Scottish count.

We continue to look, with the Ministry of Defence, at the issues surrounding our armed services, and we will come to a firm conclusion on that in the near future.

The question was raised of whether a personal representative of a deceased person will be a Scottish taxpayer, and the answer is no. A Scottish taxpayer will be an individual, and after their death that will not extend to the personal representative. It follows that any income arising during the administration of the deceased’s estate will not be subject to the Scottish rate of income tax.

I was asked whether it was fair that people will not receive split-year treatment when they move between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and I touched on that briefly a moment ago. No split-year treatment applies to those leaving or arriving in Scotland: an individual will be a Scottish taxpayer for a full tax year or not at all. There is no prospect of double taxation when someone lives part of the year in Scotland and the rest of the time in another part of the UK. It would be administratively much more complex were we to try to split the year.

On whether proposed new section 80G is too broad, that goes back to my earlier discussion of the amendments in this group. The power in the new section is needed to deal with mainly technical changes and to decide which reliefs should be taxed at the variable or UK rates. That is almost a mirror image of the power to deal with the consequences of setting the Scottish variable rate, which is already in section 79 of the 1998 Act. It is worth pointing out, as I said earlier, that we have set up three technical committees, on charities, pensions and income tax, to discuss the impact that the Scottish rate of income tax will have on the wider tax system, and to consider where modifications might be required. Therefore, we need the power to deal with that situation.

I reassure the Committee that the Treasury does not seek a general power to impose retrospective legislation; the measure set out in proposed new section 80G is limited to the start of the tax year. If we need to make a consequential change, we will ensure it takes effect at the same time as the provision to which it is consequential. We think that that will be helpful.

A point was made about what HMRC and the Government will do to support employers, and about the concern that the measure might be administratively difficult for employers when identifying who is and is not a Scottish taxpayer. Let me assure the Committee that it will be HMRC’s responsibility to identify who is and is not a Scottish taxpayer. Scottish taxpayers will then be given a Scottish tax code by HMRC, and employers will use it in the PAYE system, just as they do with other employees. It is also worth mentioning that there will be an awareness campaign in Scotland and in the rest of the UK ahead of the system’s introduction.

The rights of appeal will be based on existing mechanisms, but they might need to be adapted, and HMRC will discuss that with the professional associations in due course through the technical groups that it has established. The self-assessment form for the self-employed will need to be altered to reflect the existence of Scottish taxpayers.

On condition C, which applies to Members of Parliament and of other elected bodies, the question was asked, “Why not Scottish judges, other senior members of the Scottish civil service and so on?” We have singled out only elected representatives; others will be subject to the same rules as other Scottish taxpayers. We think it appropriate that there is no ambiguity in the case of elected representatives, and those representing Scottish constituencies at whatever level should be Scottish taxpayers.

That is a rather lengthier speech than I had hoped to make, but a number of questions were raised and I wanted to provide as many answers as possible to what is one of the most technically challenging aspects of the Bill. The solutions that we have reached are those that improve what we are building on, and they should provide as much clarity as possible.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Debate between Jim McGovern and David Gauke

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

New clause 1 and new schedule 2 seek to provide additional tax relief for companies producing video games. The measure was announced, but not implemented, by the previous Administration. As the Chancellor said in the emergency Budget statement, this tax relief for the video games industry is poorly targeted, which is why we have decided not to introduce it.

The United Kingdom’s video games industry is recognised as a world leader, having produced hugely successful games such as the “Grand Theft Auto” series, and has led to innovations in industries as diverse as defence and health care, as the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) pointed out. All that has been achieved without specific Government intervention for the sector through the tax system.

We estimate that the relief proposed by the Opposition would cost some £40 million to £50 million a year—that was the costing for the previous Administration’s proposal—and we believe that without strong evidence of a market failure in the games industry, it is difficult to justify spending that amount of money on such an intervention, particularly given the state of public finances.

[Jim McGovern]

At a recent meeting with the Minister, I told him that before the Budget that announced the intention to promote tax breaks, there were at least six ministerial visits to Dundee, which included the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Ministers from the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Chancellor. There was a lot of consultation before the then Chancellor eventually announced the decision on tax breaks. Will the Minister tell the House how many visits were made to Dundee before this Government’s decision to withdraw them?

[Mr Gauke]

The circumstances facing us in the run-up to the June Budget were such that we wanted to introduce a more fundamental reform of corporation tax. In that Budget on 22 June, we announced a reduction in the main corporation tax rate from 28% to 24% over the next four years. In doing that, we wanted to show a sense of direction, to ensure that Britain was open for business, and that we were providing lower rates. Our approach is to have a broader base but lower rates rather than targeted intervention, unless there is clear evidence that intervention is the right approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We have also reduced the small profits rate of corporation tax from 21% to 20%, when it was set to go up to 22%, and we have effectively reversed the jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions that would have hurt start-ups. We are also offering start-ups, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, a national insurance contributions holiday for the first 10 employees, so there were plenty of positive policies for start-ups announced at the time of the Budget. Indeed, given the state of the public finances, it was a very pro-business, pro-growth Budget in the way that it set up proposals for lower taxes.

On tax simplification, the Office of Tax Simplification earlier today announced the list of reliefs and exemptions within the tax system. When its work began in the summer, the general expectation was that there would be about 400 reliefs and exemptions; the total reached is 1,042 such reliefs and exemptions. Many play an important role within our tax system—I do not wish to decry that—but we have to think carefully about introducing new areas of complexity and new reliefs and exemptions, unless there is a strong case for doing so. Members have already made the case for video games, but the Government remain unconvinced.

[Jim McGovern]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very active on this issue.

[Jim McGovern]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. He talks about hearing what has been said in the Chamber, but as far as I am aware he has not yet met Richard Wilson of TIGA. Like everyone else who mentions the organisation, I originally referred to it as “teega” but Mr Wilson continually refers to it as “tiger”, and I assume that he knows better than I do. I believe the logo resembles a tiger, so there is a connection with the pronunciation there. Will the Minister agree to come to Dundee and I will arrange for Richard Wilson to be there? If figures are to be bandied about, with the Minister saying they are erroneous and Richard Wilson saying they are correct, it would be better if those two were in the same room at the same time to discuss the issue.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for that invitation. I am sure it will be small comfort to the hon. Gentleman, but I will accept the pronunciation “tiger” and concede that point. I am not sure that it would be terribly helpful if we were all in the same room to discuss these particular numbers. As I say, we are not convinced by the case made on these numbers. Of course, Members with constituencies that have a concentration of video game companies will want to make that case, but it is right for the Government to look at the economy as a whole and to bring forward policies that benefit all parts of the country and all sectors, including the video game sector. As I said in the meetings I have had with the hon. Member for Dundee West, there is no sense in which the Government are in any way anti-video games or think it is an antisocial issue or anything like that. It is a question of economic efficiency and where we believe the role of Government can be best used—and that is in providing a favourable climate for businesses.

I appreciate that the new clause and new schedule proposed by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) are probing measures, but I would like to touch on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). This relief is targeted at a specific sector and it would be considered to be state aid; as such, it would require notification to and approval from the European Commission. The new clause and new schedule would be effective from Royal Assent. As the Government would not be able to secure approval in such a short period, the provisions would create an illegal state aid. As I said, I understand that the amending provisions are probing, but the same issue applies to the previous Government’s proposals—and they, too, would have required state aid approval, which is worth putting on the record.

The new clause would create unjustified distortion and complexity in the corporate tax system. We do not think that such an intervention would represent good value for money for the Exchequer or be conducive to providing a simple and competitive tax system. The UK needs a tax system that supports all businesses, because it is the private sector across the board that will drive the recovery. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause and new schedule.