Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Debate between Peter Bone and David Gauke

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Putting aside the paranoia and conspiracy theories, let us consider the Government’s record and the steps we have taken, time and again, to ensure that those who should pay more in tax do pay more in tax. That is the reality.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This is an artificially generated question, because there is a general election coming up. Everybody in the House is against evasion, which is illegal, and successive Governments have closed loopholes on avoidance. In fact, this Government have been rather good at that. Is this not just a general election question?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is more worldly than I am, perhaps, but he raises an important point. We have tried to do many things to reduce tax avoidance and evasion, but I accept that we have not been able to go back in time and stop it happening before we came to office.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and David Gauke

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

Order. Interventions are getting longer than some of the speeches.

[Mr Gauke]

I am not sure that I can add much, other than to say that if the hon. Lady is concerned about uncertainty she might want to look at some of the anti-business policies pursued by her party.

We also recognise that air services in some of the more remote parts of the UK represent a vital connection to the rest of the country. That is why there is an air passenger duty exemption for flights from the highlands and islands of Scotland.

Changes to the Budget

Debate between Peter Bone and David Gauke

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady says that the Government were desperate for money-making measures. Why does she think we needed such measures? She might have noticed that her party left the biggest peacetime deficit we have ever faced. The extraordinary thing about the Labour party is that it always believes that there is a magic money tree that we can get money from. I am afraid, however, that we have to take steps to reduce the deficit. Even with these changes, we remain on the course that we set out. This was a fiscally neutral Budget, and we are not taking risks with the public finances, which is the U-turn that the Opposition want us to take.

The hon. Lady asked how a Budget could be changed and why we had departed from what it set out to do. I should like to remind the House what happened four years ago. In 2007, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the doubling of the 10p rate. A year later, his successor had to come to the House—not in a Budget, but weeks later—and set out additional tax cuts of over £3 billion. They had got their policy wrong and they had destroyed their credibility by doubling the income tax rate for the poorest earners in this country. That is an example of a Budget shambles.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Government should not apologise for making these U-turns. This is parliamentary democracy at work. It is because Members of this House argued strongly for changes in the Budget that such changes have occurred. Let us contrast that with what happened under the last Government. When their own Back Benchers asked for changes, the Government would not agree to them. This Government should be proud of these changes; they should not apologise.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically helpful intervention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and David Gauke

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

There are many marketed schemes that HMRC is convinced do not work, and that will be established in the courts. I suggest that those who are sometimes persuaded by claims that a particular scheme will work should treat them with caution. However, the Government are determined to crack down on stamp duty land tax avoidance. We took steps in the last Budget, we took steps in the autumn statement strengthening the disclosure regime, and there may well be more to come.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

When the banks begin to make profits again, they will offset the losses that they made when they got us into a total mess, and will avoid paying tax. Whenever companies are paying tax on their profits, the banks will be avoiding tax on theirs. Will the Government look at that?

[Mr Gauke]

There are times when taxpayers engage in aggressive avoidance and we put a stop to it, as we did last week. However, the offsetting of losses is not novel—it is a long-standing element of the tax system—and, although of course we keep all such matters under review, the legitimate use of losses does not necessarily count as aggressive avoidance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and David Gauke

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Unless we get the public finances right, there will be no long-term consumer confidence. Can we imagine what the impact would be if the Government abandoned their approach and just started spending money, like the previous Government did, and failed to tackle the deficit? I am afraid that consumer confidence would go through the floor.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Is it not right to say that to compensate for the increase in VAT, the Government have increased the personal allowance for taxpayers, so that consumers have more money to spend?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have increased the personal allowance, taking 880,000 people out of income tax, resulting in an income tax cut for millions of people. It is none the less the fact that we must tackle the deficit. To the extent that the Labour party wants to do anything about the deficit, it advocates reducing the deficit by increasing taxes by more. Think what that would do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and David Gauke

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Let me put it this way: we would have a lot more inquiries if taxes were going up, which is the policy the Opposition advocate.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

14. What assessment he has made of the effects on his Department’s ability to reduce the deficit of the reduction in the UK’s EU budgetary rebate; and if he will make a statement.

PAYE Contributions

Debate between Peter Bone and David Gauke

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Minister is responding excellently to the question, but I must say to him gently that it would have been better had he made a statement rather than being asked to come to the House.

PAYE has always been a collection of money on account towards the final tax liability, but the Minister has not made it clear to me whether a great number of people are affected by the current situation just because people’s lifestyles have changed. Was there also an error in the basic collection by the Revenue of the correct information given by taxpayers?

[Mr Gauke]

Our understanding is that the fundamental problem is changing working practices—that is the long-term issue. Of course, there may be circumstances in which HMRC has made errors, but changing working practices is the essential problem. It is also the case that the new computer system more accurately and rigorously picks up problems than happened before. That is why we have seen the increase in underpayments and overpayments. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that there have always been underpayments and overpayments under the payment-on-account PAYE system.

Office of Tax Simplification

Debate between Peter Bone and David Gauke

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The OTS can look at all taxes. We will agree other subjects for consideration in the future, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to highlight that matter.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The spat at the beginning of the urgent question about whether the written statement was first leaked to the press raised the blood pressure of the shadow Minister. Would the Minister encourage all Back Benchers—indeed, all Ministers—to come along to the first Back-Bench business debate scheduled for later this evening on the very topic of information on statements for Back Benchers?