HMRC and Google (Settlement)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I want to address this point and engage seriously with Members on the calculations that we have seen in the press, suggesting some of these very large numbers. As far as I can see, those calculations are based on looking at the profits attributed to the sales in the United Kingdom, and there is a very important distinction between profits attributed to sales versus profits attributed to economic activity and assets. The UK is a country that is very creative. We have a very strong scientific base. As a country, much economic activity goes on here that is involved in then exporting goods and services, and the profits from those exports should, I believe, be taxed in the UK where the economic activity occurs, not in the countries where the sales may occur. If we accept that principle, it does, I have to say, rather discredit the claims of a 3% tax rate.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Although we fully appreciate in the House that the international rules are ferociously complex and that there can sometimes be variations in how they can be interpreted, will my hon. Friend please assure the House one way or the other whether Google has actually broken any laws that were in place between 2005 and 2011—or is this just an outcome of negotiations?

[Mr Gauke]

Again, I cannot comment on that—in large part because I am not privy to information that is not in the public domain—but I can say that an inquiry has been in place for some years and that it has now reached a conclusion. The consequence of the conclusion of that inquiry is, as Google has stated, that an additional £130 million is being paid to the Exchequer. Google has also made it clear that it has made changes in how it structures some of its arrangements, and that will obviously have an implication for future tax liabilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we need to see the highest levels of conduct from the banking sector. We also need to continue to take steps in terms of our long-term economic plan to secure access to funding for small businesses. That is why we have taken steps to back peer-to-peer lending and extended funding for lending for another two years. We continue to benefit from record low interest rates thanks to our prudent economic management.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

There has been speculation that the Treasury has influenced the decision by the Financial Conduct Authority. While I think that such speculation is certainly fanciful, it is important to remind the House that the FCA was set up in 2012 as an independent organisation. Does my hon. Friend agree that one way we could underpin the independence of the FCA would be to adopt a similar process to the one we have with the Office for Budget Responsibility, whereby the Treasury Committee can have power of veto over the appointment of the chief executive?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend, who is a very constructive and engaged member of the Treasury Committee, will have the opportunity to ask questions of the acting chief executive and the chair of the FCA on Wednesday. I agree that it is very useful for such a Committee to have pre-appointment hearings with any executive of the FCA.

Capital Markets Union

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 General Committees

[The Chair]

Hon. Members now have until 12.34 pm at the latest to ask questions, subject to my discretion.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her statement and I welcome the initiatives that are coming with the capital markets union action plan, but I would like her to reassure the Committee on a number of issues. Clearly what we are discussing is a very good thing, but is there any risk that it might expose us to negative factors, such as a financial transaction tax, which we might have to levy as part of a capital markets union across the whole EU? In addition, there are issues such as the location of clearing houses. Other important factors also need to be considered, such as how this issue relates to our proposals to secure our interest outside, not inside the eurozone and what effect the initiative might have on negotiations ahead of the referendum next year.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Let me take those points in turn. As a distinguished member of the Select Committee on the Treasury, my hon. Friend knows that the UK does not object in principle to financial transaction taxes. The UK has a financial transaction tax on stocks that are bought in the UK. However, the Government are concerned about the application of a financial transaction tax on instruments that could be traded elsewhere in the world, because if it were applied to something that is easily mobile and can be moved quickly to another jurisdiction, that is what would happen. There are no proposals in the capital markets union steps outlined today to harmonise taxation in any way. The Government stand strongly on our belief that taxation is a matter for member states and we continue to argue that case.

On the more general points about renegotiation and the Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk, it is clear that the European Union needs to address the fact that nine countries continue to have their own currencies and 19 have chosen to adopt the euro. There is absolutely no prospect of the UK ever joining the euro, so as part of the renegotiation we need to make it clear across the 28 EU countries that positive initiatives such as this on capital markets must reflect the fact that this is a multi-currency single market for capital. We will fight vigorously against any proposals that threaten that. That is a key part of the renegotiation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve on my first European Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I am pleased to serve opposite the Minister.

On this occasion, my remarks will be brief, but I note the late arrival of two letters from the Minister to the European Scrutiny Committee and to members of this Committee. I understand that the letters were sent to the European Scrutiny Committee on Monday evening, and I believe that I should have received them yesterday, although I have no record of doing so. I therefore had sight of them only this morning, which means that I have not had time to seek advice. I defer to the member of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood, and I will raise a few issues that the Minister may be able to respond to. Why were the documents provided so late and what opportunity there is for further consideration of them?

The motion references a number of documents from the European Commission relating to the capital markets union and the action plan to deliver the CMU’s objectives, which the commissioner, Lord Hill, set out on 30 September. There is much technical detail in the paperwork for this debate, but I will make some general points. The CMU is being driven forward at a rapid pace by Commissioner Hill and is part of a process of the economic recovery of the European Union as a whole and a contribution to supporting jobs and growth. The initiative’s intention, as Commissioner Hill and the Minister have said, is to build a single capital market across the European Union.

The central goal of the proposals, as set out by the Minister, is to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to access funding in a period when finance has dried up from banks. Delivering finance where it is needed is, of course, vital for economic activity to deliver the necessary investment for future growth, which Opposition Members set out as our priority at the recent autumn statement. The Opposition naturally wish to support measures that generate finance for investment, and to support jobs and growth, as would be expected. We want accessible finance to be delivered across the economy, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises to ensure that they deliver the dynamic and innovative economic activity that our economy needs.

I note that we are discussing this in the week of the recent Bank of England stress test results, when, despite the fact that two banks have to take action to boost their capital reserves, the Governor of the Bank of England stated that the post-crisis period is over. We should recognise the wariness and the real concerns with regards to the CMU and the return to securitisation in the wake of the financial crisis.

The Minister has said that this needs to be done in a

“simple, transparent and standardised way”,

but I am sure that she will understand those who urge caution. The recent statement by Finance Watch, supported by a number of non-governmental organisations, states that

“the CMU revives pre-crisis trends without adequately integrating the lessons from the crisis.”

It has expressed concern that there is a risk in the CMU agenda of favouring short-term growth and competitiveness over long-term, sustainable development.

To quote two academics, Daniela Gabor from the University of the West of England and Jakob Vestergaard, from the Danish Institute for International Studies,

“if the CMU is to make a substantial and lasting contribution to investment and job creation in Europe, it must be accompanied by reforms that address systemic risk in securities-based financial systems and enhance pan-European supervision of securitization”.

The Minister said in October that we need to turn our attention from financial services reform

“to reform that boosts our economies, and increases competitiveness.”

Our belief is that, although we wish to boost our economies, we should not consider financial reform to be done and dusted. Indeed, there is the potential for further reform to deliver that boost to our economy. There is a real need to discuss the role of securitisation, particularly as banks have increased their capital and cleaned up their balance sheets and can now lend more, not less. There is no overall shortage of credit supply. Opposition Members—I know that all Members would agree with me—do not wish to see a return to the securitisation that facilitated the US sub-prime mortgage crash, from which the global economic crisis originated. It will be necessary to demonstrate what lessons have been learned as the action plan is developed.

To do that, I hope that the Minister can address a number of points. Will she ensure that the key principles of good securitisation are not watered down through pressure from large, international banks? Will she set out how the CMU will deal with a lack of convergence or consistency in existing supervisory regimes? Do the Government support a new single regulatory or supervisory body for capital markets across Europe?

The Opposition believe that we should be open to a wider range of measures to deliver finance for business and investment, as we recently discussed in the debate on the RBS share sale, including: encouraging increased lending by the private banking sector and using our influence where we have direct interest in banks, such as RBS; the establishment of a dedicated national investment bank; and the development of regional banking. Capital markets might be an area for future development in Europe, but UK business remains largely reliant on bank lending. We need to ensure that we do not take our eye off the issues raised in the Lawrence Tomlinson and Andrew Large reports, or overlook the difficulty businesses have had in accessing bank finance following the economic crisis and the bank bail-outs.

The commissioner has said that securitisation under CMU will

“free up bank lending for the wider economy.”

Will the Minister say how CMU will affect the steps being taken by the Government to ensure that SMEs can access the finance they require from UK banks?

[Mark Garnier]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Reducing the requirement for large businesses to borrow money from banks by going to the securities markets would leave more capital in the banks that could then be passed down to smaller businesses. That would shift the big requirement on banks’ assets away from big businesses to concentrate on smaller businesses.

[Richard Burgon]

I welcome that clarification of the Government’s position.

Finance Watch has argued that CMU

“is also likely to undermine important financial reforms processes such as the long-awaited separation of risky capital markets activities from basic banking”.

Will the Minister respond to that concern and set out what impact CMU will have on bank ring-fencing and the separation of retail and investment banking?

CMU is an opportunity for European finance, but we must maintain the goal of having finance act for the UK and European economies and for the general public as a whole. With Europe rising up the agenda, it would certainly help to be able to highlight the positive benefits to the finance sector that EU membership and the CMU will deliver, but many questions about the proposals still need to be addressed. I will seek to increase my discussions of these matters with members of both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Treasury Committee.

We do not wish to raise any controversy about the information the Minister has given. I am grateful for being allowed to address these issues.

Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West has given his usual detailed and forensic objections to the clause. Mine are a little bit more about the Minister’s tone and presentation. First, I associate myself with his comments about those who seek to evade their taxes. I have no time for such people. If people are able to pay their taxes, they should do so. That is the price that we pay for a having a stable society that is paid for by taxation. I have no time for people who are, frankly, freeloading on the hard work of others. The hon. Gentleman was correct on that.

My concern with the Minister’s presentation is the tone compared with the tone of the previous discussion about compliance for those who seek to hold their assets offshore. In the discussion on that clause, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that enforcement action would be very much a last resort—a route that HMRC would not necessarily want to go down. With this measure, the enforcement action seems to be a whole lot tougher. If I am doing the hon. Gentleman a disservice, I apologise; this is a genuine point. The impression I get is that once again it seems easier, and the Government seem more ready, to go after, shall we say, the little man, rather than those who have substantial assets elsewhere. However unacceptable individual tax evasion is, I cannot help but wonder whether the real issue we face is large-scale corporate avoidance of tax. I realise that is not part of the clause, Sir Roger, but I hope you will allow me a little latitude. The Government are focusing on small individuals rather than tackling the big issues of corporate taxation. If I am doing the Minister a disservice, I apologise, but I felt that the tone of his presentation focused too much on smaller-scale enforcement.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I sympathise with some of what the hon. Gentleman says, but his party surely cannot be advocating that just because someone is a small person, they can avoid paying taxes. The Government are bringing in measures to tackle every level of tax avoidance. Clearly, some cases will be more obvious than others, but where someone has blindingly obviously not paid tax and has a cash asset, rather than go to the huge trouble and cost of taking them to court, seizing their assets and selling those assets, why is this the wrong thing to do? Surely we must collect tax from everybody who owes it.

[Christian Matheson]

I certainly do not think we should not take enforcement action against people who can but do not pay their taxes. That is not the issue. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said about enforcement for non-payers. I was slightly concerned that in the tone of what the Minister said, there was much more zeal for enforcement action at the lower end of the market than at the higher end. If that is a mistaken impression, I apologise, but there has to be more focus on large-scale corporate taxation, which may of course be covered in other parts of the Bill.

Finance Bill (Third sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Harriett Baldwin]

Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s question by agreeing that clause 18, given the way it is worded, applies only to banks. Clearly, it was introduced in response to the fact that the scale of bank compensation, to which I referred in my opening remarks, has been so significant. More than £25 billion has already been paid out, which has had a material and meaningful impact on the corporation tax receipts of Her Majesty’s Treasury. We have always been clear that we want banks to make a fair contribution to their historic costs and their potential impact on future risks to the economy.

The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation relating to the Volkswagen emissions scandal, which, as he is right to highlight, is a complete scandal. There is currently no intention to extend this measure. It is obviously early days in terms of the full scale of potential actions regarding Volkswagen, in particular Volkswagen in the UK and where the company pays corporation tax. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government reserve the right to act decisively through legislation such as Finance Bills when they need to take steps to protect the public finances.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

On a point of clarification, the Minister mentioned that the costs of expenses incurred in addition to fines would also not be tax deductible. As she knows, under a section 166 agreement, the Financial Conduct Authority can ask a bank, at its own expense, to investigate an alleged misdemeanour. As I understand it from what she is saying, if that results in a fine, the section 166 cost is not tax deductible, but what would happen if it did not result in a fine and came off with a negative result? Would the section 166 undertaking be recoverable under tax?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend speaks with great insight and authority from his position on the Select Committee on the Treasury. I can explain to him that these measures are designed to tackle the material costs of compensation that are reflected, or provisioned for, in a bank’s accounts. In addition to that, a further 10% for the general costs of administration is attached. Were the costs that my hon. Friend refers to significant enough to require provision in the company’s accounts, they would be captured by this measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Banks established under Savings Bank (Scotland) Act 1819: loss allowance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

The amendments, as far as I can tell, are technical measures to smooth things out. As ever, these things come out in the wash, whether it is Mrs Gauke or someone else who spots them.

It is likely that I will ask my hon. Friends to support the clause but I want to probe the Government on it. As the Minister knows, this is one of the higher profile clauses in the Bill and has attracted a rather large postbag. Some landlords—not all—are concerned.

I appreciate that any landlord among the one in five paying more tax under the provision has almost two years from 8 July to April 2017 to sell the property if they wish to do so, so that they are not boxed in with de facto retrospective action, which can happen if there is only three months in which to sell. I salute the Government for giving that transition time.

I am surprised to hear that only one in five landlords will be affected, but the Government and the OBR have done their research. I am concerned that the measure will do nothing for house prices, which is perhaps a debate for another day. Would that it would bring down house prices, which are far too high around the country. Those prices might well get higher when pensioners, under the Government’s freedoms, buy not Lamborghinis but houses with the money freed from their pension funds.

[Mark Garnier]

I have a small amount of sympathy with the view that house prices are too high, but is the hon. Gentleman genuinely advocating that the principal method of saving for most people in this country should be reduced in value? The effect on households would be astronomically catastrophic if one were to start reducing house prices. Is that part of his policy?

[Rob Marris]

Yes, I would like house prices to come down; they are far too high. For most people, property is not an asset that is any good to them until they die—in which case, of course, it is no good to them. The house I live in is worth roughly eight times what we paid for it 30 years ago. That is almost entirely a windfall, though some of it is due to improvements we have made. I will not take long on this, Sir Roger, because I know you do not want us to be too diverted, but were my wife and I to move, we would have to pay an equivalent sum for something else. Yes, house prices are far too high but they will come down when the Government do their bit by increasing the supply of houses.

Meanwhile, returning to clause 24, this is the issue on which I wish to probe the Minister. I may have misunderstood these technical matters because I am not an accountant, but I believe the buy-to-let income accruing to the landlord is counted as income for income tax purposes. There will therefore be some landlords—perhaps the Government have figures—who, before this change, when their non-buy-to-let income, perhaps from a job, was added to their buy-to-let income were standard rate taxpayers, but who will become higher rate taxpayers after the change is made. Therefore, that group may end up paying considerably more tax.

It is not simply a question of landlords who are already 40% taxpayers because of other income being levelled, as it were, to 20%, which is what I understand the clause is designed to do. That is understandable. However, it would actually be promoting people—pushing them into a higher rate tax bracket—and therefore they would be losers. Does the Minister have any figures on that “in between” group—a rather maladroit phrase, but the Minister will understand what I mean—who will be pushed up. I hope that, now he has the piece of paper, he will be able to elucidate that point for the Committee. As I say, my inclination is to support the measure, but I am concerned about that cohort who may be suddenly treated in a slightly different way, which may mean that the figure of one in five the Minister quoted is somewhat low.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has referred to specific personal changes that help, but is it not also the case that the Government have done a great deal to support very small businesses, of which many are microbusinesses or sole traders? The reduction in corporation tax and the non-domestic rate relief for those very small businesses will also help households, particularly those who are self-employed and who run small businesses.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to ensure that we have rising living standards is to have strong economy, which ensures that we encourage businesses, attract investment to the UK and reward entrepreneurship. That is the Government’s approach, but whether it is that of the official Opposition remains to be seen.

As we are talking about income tax, it is worth pointing out that 3.8 million individuals have been removed from income tax altogether since 2010 as a consequence of increases in the personal allowance. The Government are committed to continuing to make work pay and have pledged to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000 by the end of this Parliament. The Government also believe that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. That is why we are introducing a change so that the personal allowance will automatically increase to ensure that it does not fall below the equivalent of 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage.

This will be the first time in history that the personal allowance has not been indexed on the basis of price inflation, instead ensuring that individuals who earn up to 30 hours on the national minimum wage will not pay income tax in the future. Clause 3 changes the basis of indexation for the income tax personal allowance from the consumer prices index to ensure that it is always set at a level at least equivalent to 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. The change will take effect once the personal allowance reaches £12,500. Individuals working 30 hours a week or fewer on the national minimum wage will therefore be taken out of income tax altogether.

Clause 4 sets out that, until the personal allowance reaches £12,500, the Chancellor will have a legal duty to consider the impact of any proposed increase to the personal allowance on an individual working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. The clause also sets out the requirement for the Chancellor to make a statement on the impact that this will have on those individuals when an increase to the personal allowance is made at a future fiscal event.

The changes to income tax thresholds in the Bill will mean that an individual can work at least 30 hours a week without paying income tax both in 2015-16 and next year. In 2010, an individual could work only 21 hours on the national minimum wage without paying income tax. In time, an individual working 30 hours on the national minimum wage will be brought back into income tax.

On clause 5, it is worth pointing out how much the personal allowance has increased in recent years. In 2010-11, it was just £6,475; now, it is £10,600. Following on from that record, in this Parliament, we have committed to delivering a high wage, low tax, low welfare society. That includes reducing taxes for the lower paid, and that is why we have committed to increasing the personal allowance from its current level of £10,600 to £12,500 by the end of the Parliament. Clause 5 increases the personal allowance from £10,600 in 2015-16 to £11,000 in 2016-17 and to £11,200 in 2017-18.

In total, 570,000 individuals will be taken out of income tax altogether by 2016-17. That will increase to more than 660,000 by 2017-18. The changes represent a tax cut for 29 million taxpayers who will see their typical income tax bill reduced by £905 by 2016-17. Taxpayers who are over 65 will also benefit. From 2016-17 onwards, the tax system will be simplified so that all taxpayers will be entitled to the same personal allowance; the remaining age-related allowance of £10,660 will be merged with the higher personal allowance of £11,000.

The clauses allow us to support those in work by enabling people to keep more of the money they earn by paying less income tax. We are helping the lowest paid by taking them out of income tax altogether and we are moving towards a high wage, low tax and low welfare society.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gauke]

We fought the last general election saying that we would introduce this legislation. We won that general election, which suggests that the British people had confidence in the overall package of our fiscal policies. If Labour Members are worried about fiscal confidence, perhaps they should look somewhat closer to home.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing any Government should be able to do is give some sort of confidence to households that their tax rates will not go up, providing them with the opportunity to plan for the future with more security than they would have if this measure were not in place?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A striking point made by a number of my hon. Friends on Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week was that the introduction of the tax lock in the context of employers’ national insurance contributions gives employers much greater confidence. Providing economic stability and security is an important part of the Government’s long-term economic plan. A credible party needs to present to the British people how it will provide economic security and stability. That is what this Government are doing. I look forward to the day when there is cross-party consensus that economic security and stability are important to this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think it is. In fact, if it is seen in the same way, someone needs to have a word with the Prime Minister. He constantly refers to the 0.7% commitment as a matter of huge pride and has quoted it a great deal in our debates about the refugee crisis over the past week or two. The difference with financial matters—this is probably why the current Chancellor was so critical of things in 2009—is that there are many opportunities to legislate. This is the third Finance Bill this year, so things could change. The 0.7% international aid commitment was a very long-term commitment. It came up a great deal in international discussions and still does, so there is a difference.

I was talking about the insurance premium tax and the fact that people are not protected from those sorts of tax increase. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said:

“The tax and welfare changes between them mean that poorer households have lost quite significantly and as a result of yesterday’s Budget, much more significantly than anything that has happened to richer households.”

He also said:

“Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the Budget on average.”

Let us bear in mind that many of the households that benefit from this tax lock have been adversely impacted by other tax changes. In fact, the summer Budget did not cut the overall tax bill; it raised it.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Lady makes a lot about feeling it unnecessary that the Government have to promise to legislate not to change tax rates and about the importance of not affecting working households, particularly those at the bottom end. Is it not the case that when her party was in government, there was an understanding that people at the bottom end would be protected, yet at that time the 10p tax rate was removed, causing huge problems for working households? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Barbara Keeley]

There is a great deal of looking back, but let us look at what is happening this year and what will happen in the years following this Budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts net taxes to rise by more than £47 billion over the next four years, with much of the money coming from increases in dividend tax, insurance premium tax, vehicle excise duty and cuts in pension tax relief. Of course, welfare cuts will also raise almost £35 billion. It is one thing saying that families will benefit from the tax lock, but all of those measures will hit many families and individuals in the UK hard.

The combination of changes needs to be seen in the context of the cut to tax credits that Government Members voted through this week, which are likely to leave millions of families worse off. I was asked the other day, “What else would you do?” It is our contention that the welfare reform we need is to things such as overpayments and the error and fraud in the welfare system, because things are not properly checked at the point of application. Error and fraud cost £3 billion a year. The cut to tax credits will hit working people on middle and lower incomes, which undermines the Government’s argument that this is a Budget for working people.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

I am mindful of the fact that we have got another 48 clauses, so I will try to be brief—which is difficult for me. There are particular issues about the VAT lock that have to be put to the Minister.

VAT income to the Treasury is notoriously variable because VAT is a tax on consumption. It varies with the business cycle because it is a consumption tax. Unfortunately, in clauses 1 and 2 the Government are introducing the new doctrine that major taxes, including VAT, will be set once every five years at the start of each Parliament. I presume that in the Government’s mind the tax lock will exist in perpetuity and will be set at a different level every time we elect a Government. They are decoupling the raising of revenue—the revenue function of the Government and the Treasury—from the business cycle. As the business cycle goes up and down, income to the Treasury will go up and down independently of when we set tax rates—particularly VAT.

[Mark Garnier]

I am acutely aware of the fact that we have got a lot to get on with, but I find the hon. Gentleman’s argument utterly preposterous. He is arguing that, should the business cycle slow down, he would increase VAT—were he in a position to do so—which would have the effect of stifling consumption and thereby amplifying the problem, rather than negating it. This measure is quite clearly a cap, not a floor, so we can reduce VAT should we want to stimulate the business cycle.

[George Kerevan]

My good friend from the Treasury Committee anticipates what I was not going to say. All I am arguing is that we require flexibility in setting taxes to respond to events in the real economy. The doctrine that the Government are introducing of a tax lock in perpetuity removes such flexibly. That in itself creates uncertainty in the minds of business and the financial community, which the Government will have to address.

I accept the principle that we should try to set taxes in a way that is not destabilising. That should lead us to consult with the business community and community interest groups before we change taxes. That is perfectly possible and it is done in other countries. In Germany, for instance, there is mandatory consultation between the federal and regional Parliaments before income tax levels are changed. There are other ways to do that. The Chancellor accepted that principle in relation to North sea oil taxes when he gave an undertaking that any major changes would come only after consultation with the industry. Unfortunately, he did not extend that doctrine to the renewables industry, which would have been sensible.

To put a tax lock on VAT in perpetuity decouples revenue setting from the business cycle and, in the end, that is not tenable, because the taxes would be varied in an emergency. It is not tenable to decouple them, so the Government will live to rue the day that they put the lock in. That explains the reason for the lock. It is not for economic reasons; they are playing a political game. It is a gimmick.

Tax Credits

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I am not going to pretend that it is easy to stand up and speak in favour of something that is, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has said, going to be tough on families, but this is none the less the right thing to do. We have heard a great many estimates of how families are going to be affected, with a variety being produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The one that I have seen gives a figure of £750.

This measure will affect families, but it is worth bearing in mind the fact that there are mitigating factors that will make a difference for those families. We have heard about the tax threshold increases, and it is also worth bearing it in mind that many of those families are also small and micro-business owners who have benefited from reliefs on business taxes and small business rate relief. The economy is also a lot better, with very low inflation rates at the moment.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on the fact that someone working full time and earning £17,000 a year will lose close to £2,000 as a result of these measures? Why do the Government want to punish hard-working families in this way, at the same time as they are increasing the inheritance tax threshold? This is vindictive and nasty.

[Mark Garnier]

I am not sure I recognise the figure of £2,000 on a £17,000 income, and I do not accept that this Government are punishing hard-working people. I see a Government who are doing an enormous amount by reducing the threshold tax rates and by helping small businesses. We have seen more people come into work than there have ever been before. This Government have had a huge number of successes, so I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is describing.

There are two particular reasons why I support this measure, the first of which was highlighted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the former Chancellor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) in talking about the effect that tax credits have on employers. We do not know exactly the extent to which this has been the case, but without a shadow of a doubt some employers will have been not paying the right salary or pay, given that the Government are subsidising not necessarily those people on low incomes but the employers employing people on low incomes. We also know that if that did happen early on, it is much more difficult to unravel it now, which is why it is very important that we have the new national minimum living wage. It is there to ensure that wages do start going up, although I concede that this does not necessarily cover it all.

[Helen Goodman]

How can employers take account of the tax credits, given that the tax credits are paid according to family circumstance and the wage is not?

[Mark Garnier]

Because employees will work for a wage that they can afford to work at, and if the Government are subsiding those household incomes the employers can take advantage of that. It is difficult—I completely concede that—to unravel this.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Conservative Members are clear that the macro picture is absolutely right and we have to reduce the welfare bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could do one specific thing that would help enormously? The BBC has withdrawn its online calculator for people who want to know how much they will be affected by this, and online forums suggest that different calculations are produced by different newspapers. Could the Government produce their own calculator so that our constituents can find out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Graham, you know you are pushing your luck. The hon. Gentleman has already given way twice and you are taking up your colleague’s time.

[Mark Garnier]

A very wise idea.

The second reason I am very supportive of these changes goes back to the old argument about reducing the deficit. Conservatives made it perfectly clear at the last election that we would seek to find £12 billion through benefit changes, and that was a manifesto pledge. We were elected with an increase in our number of Members of Parliament and a rise in the sitting MPs’ majorities. We have been asked by the country to deliver on our manifesto pledges, and this is part of that delivery.

We still have a budget deficit, and the tax credits system costs the taxpayer about £30 billion a year. The IFS this morning said that it expects these changes potentially to deliver £6 billion in savings. It is worth remembering that, as has been said, tax credits cost just £1.1 billion when they were first introduced, but that has now ballooned to the current level and that is simply not acceptable. It is also worth remembering that they ballooned in a period of so-called “high economic growth”. The then Chancellor, famous for many things but in particular for claiming to have ended boom and bust, was running a bizarre programme of increasing benefits at the same time as telling us that the economy was fine and growing steadily. Perhaps he knew something that he was not telling us, increasing benefits in anticipation of the collapse caused by the crisis—perhaps he knew it was coming. By 2010, 90% of families with children were receiving tax benefits. Do 90% of families actually need these tax credits, even after all those years of the Labour Government, when we would have thought that the families would be doing better? Apparently, they are not. These tax changes take us back to the real levels in 2007 and 2008.

I wish to finish by discussing one point. I was very struck, as were many Members, by the election whose result we saw on Saturday. I was particularly struck by the number of young people who were voting in that leadership election. They were voting in the name of voting against austerity. They were objecting to what they see as cuts being delivered to them today. In 20 or 30 years’ time, they will have to take responsibility for the mess that they find—we have to do something now. If we hand over the shop to them as we found it five years ago, austerity would not mean some managed cuts; it would mean devastating cuts that would be unbelievably painful. We have to take responsibility for the way things are now. I am not in the business of mortgaging the next generation’s future. I want to take responsibility for the problems we have today and not kick the can down the road. This is not austerity-heavy; it is common sense.

Finance Bill

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

However, the Government have undermined sustainability by creating perverse incentives and reducing the long-term tax base. They have undermined fairness by giving a big tax cut to a small number of global banks while increasing taxes for new challengers. Most importantly, they have undermined competition by choking off the growth of building societies and smaller banks. This is not a long-term plan to build a better banking sector; it looks like a quick fix to appease the likes of HSBC and Standard Chartered. It is a plan that has been criticised by the British Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association, the IFS, the Chair of the Treasury Committee and the Government’s own Back Benchers. The Minister does not have to take it from me, the Opposition spokesperson; she should take it from her own Back Benchers. The Government must take this opportunity to think again. I urge all parts of the Committee to support our new clause.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who mentioned me several times in her speech. In the broadest sense, I agree entirely with what the Government are doing, but I have one or two reservations, to which she alluded.

It is worth looking back to why the bank levy was brought in and to what it was a response. It was, of course, a response to the bank bonus tax introduced by the previous Government, which was brought in, in turn, to try to get some money back for taxpayers from when the banks were bailed out. I think that it is the right thing to do. Banks should help to pay back the taxpayer, but the bonus tax was never going to work. The banks were always going to get around it one way or another. Many suggestions were put out by newspapers and banks, but the one that summed up the banks’ approach best for me was a Matt cartoon in The Daily Telegraph. A trader was pictured sitting in front of his boss in a bank; the boss turned around and said, “I’m afraid you are not going to get a bonus this year, but we are going to buy your tie off you for three million quid.” That was the sort of approach that the banks were going to take.

It was therefore right for the Government to bring in a levy that could not be got around. Of course that was the right thing to do, and the intention was to raise enough money from the levy to make up the shortfall that would follow from getting rid of the bonus tax, which was around £2.1 billion to £2.2 billion. The levy was an unavoidable tax. It started out at nine basis points, rising on nine occasions to 25 basis points. That resulted from the reduction of balance sheets and from the slight change in the shape of the deposits profile—moving away from the deposits profile that would attract the levy.

It is worth bearing in mind what Douglas Flint said when he came before the Treasury Select Committee in January 2011. I asked him for his view about the future of HSBC in the UK and whether it would keep its domicile. The hon. Member for Wirral South mentioned Standard Chartered and HSBC in her speech. Douglas Flint said that the domicile was reviewed once every three years and that 2011 would be the year in which that happened. When he came before us again in January 2012 and I asked him what he was going to do, he said he was going to defer it.

It became apparent that the shareholders at HSBC, one of the best and biggest banks in the world—and, indeed, one of the most stable—were very upset about paying quite a hefty levy, which only got bigger, on their international earnings. The same applied to Standard Chartered, which had very little earnings within the UK. None the less, in responding to shareholder pressure—the shareholders were asking, of course, for an opportunity to get more return for their money—those chief executives were saying, “Don’t worry; we will ride this out and the bank levy will eventually disappear at some point.”

After five years of that, the pressure from shareholders was becoming very intense. If Standard Chartered and HSBC had left the country, the bank levy would have had to rise from 24 basis points to more like 35 basis points in order to maintain the £2 billion or so in revenue. Paying 50 basis points would be a very significant taxation on deposit levels within banks. Inevitably, then, if Standard Chartered and HSBC had left, the whole bank levy would have spun out of control and eventually wound itself into a knot that would have been completely unsustainable. That is why the Government had to do something about it.

Before I move on, it is worth looking at what the banks were getting as a result of paying the levy. The first thing—in justifying the levy to shareholders this is an important point—is that the banks were paying back the taxpayer who had bailed them out with a lot of money. The taxpayer required some sort of levy to get some of the revenue back. The second important point is that the bank levy could almost be seen as a type of insurance premium charged against the banks for having what is known as “the implicit guarantee”—the guarantee that, should the banks fall over as two of them did in 2007-08, the Government would stand behind them and pick them up.

However, the provisions of the Financial Sector (Banking Reform) Act 2013 were introduced in order to try to get to the stage where the banks would no longer need to be supported in the event of a collapse—that there would be an elegant collapse; there would be bail-in bonds and ring-fences around the important parts of the banks, so that never again would the Government step behind the banks. The banks would be allowed to collapse without causing contagion through the banking system. That is an incredibly important change.

The argument about the bank levy being an insurance premium would eventually diminish to nothing with the finalisation of the fairly expensive Banking Reform Act in 2019. As for paying money back to the taxpayer, we are in the process of doing so by means of the sales of RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock Asset Management, and the various other assets that were bought. At some point, we shall be able to draw up a final P&L to establish whether we—the UK taxpayers who bailed those banks out—have got our money back.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, we would resist such a move. It would be a fundamental change to the nature of our relationship with the European Union, and one that would go in entirely the wrong direction for the United Kingdom. There were calls in the negotiations for such a step to be taken. There were calls, for example, for a financial transaction tax to be introduced to finance EU spending. We resisted that. The Prime Minister was very clear in ruling it out from any deal.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about the financial transaction tax, but the City is an incredibly important contributor to the UK economy and it has a significant turnover. Will he assure us that the Government will not allow the European Union to attack the City from a different direction as it looks for alternative sources of revenue from the jewel in our economic crown?

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly give that assurance. There was a strong push for a financial transaction tax, which would have had a particular impact on the United Kingdom, given that we have the pre-eminent financial centre not just in the European Union, but in the world. That could have been damaging for the City of London. We resisted it and we will continue to take that approach.

To make a broader point—although I will not go too far down this route, Mr Streeter—it would be more helpful if there was an acceptance in the European Union that the City of London is a jewel in the crown, to use my hon. Friend’s phrase, not just of the United Kingdom, but of Europe as a whole. We should have the pre-eminent financial centre in the United Kingdom, and trying to damage it would be disadvantageous to all within the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We have consistently argued the case for money being spent more wisely and for greater European Union public spending restraint. We have already made progress with that argument—we made progress in 2013 and the Bill relates to the negotiation, although it is on the revenue rather than the expenditure side. We will consistently argue that case.

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he is giving us a lot of his time. He mentions fiscal prudence and spending taxpayers’ money wisely. Two things that epitomise the wastefulness of the European Union are the Strasbourg circus—the waste of money moving the whole Parliament to Strasbourg—and the fact that the accounts have not been signed off for some two decades. The Prime Minister is working very hard to achieve fiscal prudence, but does the Minister agree that the mood around the whole EU is behind him in dealing with that? The problem is not unique to the UK. The Prime Minister has the wind in his sails and support from the rest of the EU to deal with those problems.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would perhaps go further: it is not just member states that recognise that things need to change and that there needs to be better value for money. Vice-President Georgieva, who has responsibility for the budget, also recognises the need to ensure that money is spent in a better way. The Prime Minister has consistently set out the fact that there are two sensible objectives: to cut the whole budget and to protect the rebate. We will continue to make that case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

It is a great pleasure to follow what must be the briefest speech I have ever heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on this subject—it is wonderful to see him able once again to stand in his place today.

Let me turn to the question of EU finance and agriculture. I know that agriculture is not a subject that much concerns the Conservative party; the Tory party these days is much more likely to be concerned with asset stripping, rather than agricultural production, and with financial derivatives, rather than agricultural crops—that is what gets its pulse moving.

I was concerned when the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said that far too much of the European Union budget was consumed by the common agricultural policy. The fundamental reason for that—we did not hear this simple point from the Government Benches—is that the common agricultural policy is one of the few policies that financially is effectively under the competence of the European Union. If the European Union had competence over health, for example—I doubt that there is much support for that, from me or anyone else in the House—its agricultural budget would be totally dwarfed by what it spent on health. The dominance of the agricultural budget is a factor of its being one of the European Union’s relatively few common policies.

Of course, it is possible to argue that there should not be direct farm payments. Indeed, that was the argument that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) took into the CAP negotiations. He started from the position that the UK Government, without much opposition from Members from rural constituencies in the Conservative interest, thought that there should not be direct farm payments, and he found himself in a minority of one in the negotiations; his position was not supported by any other member state. It was therefore decided that we were to continue with farm payments. Therefore, if we have a common agricultural policy, and it is a substantial part of the European Union’s budget, it is reasonably important to ensure that our share of the agricultural budget as component nations in these islands is fair and competitive, because our agricultural production has to compete in that common market with that in other member states.

Does the Minister really think that the share allocated to UK agriculture, and to Scottish agriculture in particular, can be counted as a considerable achievement, as he claimed in his opening remarks? Let us remind ourselves of some of the facts. Under pillar one of the CAP budget, it was agreed that the lowest that any member state should receive in support was €196 per hectare. It was agreed in negotiations that each country in the original 15 would work to that minimum. Scotland receives substantially less than that—just over half of that payment per hectare. That is going to cost Scottish agriculture about £1 billion in the period to 2019.

[Mark Garnier]

The right hon. Gentleman said from a sedentary position during the Minister’s speech that that was because Scottish farms are the biggest in the UK. It would be helpful if he could give a little flavour of the size of Scottish farms compared with English, Welsh and Irish farms, and how the numbers break down.

[Alex Salmond]

I was going to move on to that very point, because the Minister’s reply to my intervention inspired me to go to the Library in search of some figures. I will answer that point in a moment.

Let me move on to pillar two, the second major aspect of agricultural support. I have been doing some comparisons and looked at what would have happened if in negotiations Scotland had achieved from pillar two the same amount of agricultural support as the Republic of Ireland, which in many ways is a comparable country with regard to land area and agriculture as a share of the overall economy. The answer is that Ireland has achieved a budget four times the size of Scotland’s budget under pillar two—€2.19 billion compared with €478 million—in the years to 2019.

Given that it has been decided that the common agricultural policy should continue and that farm payments should continue to be made, how will it be possible for Scottish agriculture to compete effectively when it gets such a dramatically lower share than the minimum allocated to any other EU country? Far from getting an excellent deal on pillar two to compensate for the poor deal on pillar one, Scotland gets a miserable share in comparison with comparable countries.