Budget Changes

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that measure, which was announced last week. This Government are taking the issues of homelessness seriously and an important set of policies was announced last week.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

Given that the Chancellor has been warning us all about the so-called global cocktail of risks, and given that we learned from the Budget statement that our growth forecasts are down, as are those for our productivity, which is fast reaching crisis point, what possible justification can the Minister offer, considering all the other changes that have already been made to the Budget, for retaining the substantial cut to capital gains tax, which disproportionately benefits the better off and is simply a cut that, at this point, we do not need?

[Mr Gauke]

One of the important challenges that we face is improving productivity in this country. If we want to improve productivity, we want more investment. If we want more investment, we do not want high rates of tax that discourage investment. May I point out that in terms of capital gains tax, the rate is still higher than the one we inherited in 2010?

Finance Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for informing the House that the official Labour party position is to abstain. Will she clarify: is she speaking for her Back Benchers today, because it does not always follow?

[Shabana Mahmood]

That was not quite the cutting put-down that the Minister might have envisaged. That is our position, and that is what all our party will be doing today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I wonder whether we would have the tax lock had it not been for the VAT bombshell poster we unveiled or for the exchanges at Prime Minister’s questions ahead of the general election. Ministers were certainly very quick to write such a law, and despite the Chancellor having suggested in 2009 that passing laws to ensure promises on taxation are kept was a very bad idea, he was very quick to convert to that cause. Nevertheless, they are passing a law on the tax lock. It was Labour party policy, and we are very pleased that we pushed the Conservative party into our territory in agreeing that the rates for ordinary people on lower and middle incomes should not go up.

Another change we support is on the annual investment allowance. I am pleased that the direction of travel has been set out for the whole Parliament. That contrasts very strongly with what happened during the last Parliament, when lots of chopping and changing on capital allowances definitely undermined business investment. Even if the deal is less generous, with a decrease from £500,000 to £200,000, it is important that businesses at least know that the deal they are going to get will last a lot longer than it previously did.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has mentioned with respect to the expected changes on corporation tax, there is a lack of concrete proposals for business rates. The Financial Secretary has raised expectations and hopes of real change on business rates when the consultation is finally unveiled later this year. We will certainly look at whether the business rates burden will come down for small and medium-sized companies.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady mentioned corporation tax. The Bill includes measures to reduce it first to 19% and then to 18%. Will the Labour party support those reductions, oppose them—after all, that was its position—or abstain?

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the Financial Secretary knows because we have already had such an exchange—I feel we are reliving our greatest hits—on a number of occasions in the past couple of years, our policy at the general election was our manifesto commitment not to go ahead with the corporation tax cut from 21% to 20%. We would not have gone ahead with that additional cut to 20%, but instead used all the money to pay for a cut to business rates this year and a freeze next year. It was a direct switch spend. We wanted to make a commitment to small and medium-sized businesses in our country to do something practical on business rates, but we needed to find a way to pay for that, and we chose to switch-spend in respect of the additional corporation tax cut. We of course lost the election, and the Government are proposing a further decrease of the corporation tax rate. We will support the corporation tax measures, but we will ask questions about what that means for the future direction of travel.

Following an intervention, the Financial Secretary mentioned the BEPS project. On corporation tax more generally, it is important—given how some companies seek to shift profits and game international taxation rules—to have international agreement. Concern has already been expressed in some quarters that some of the countries with which we need to do business and with which we need to agree international tax rules might start to see us as a tax haven. I disagree with such a characterisation, but there is such a risk in getting agreement within the OECD BEPS process. I would welcome it if Treasury Ministers could, in Committee, provide further details about what is happening and about how our friends in the BEPS process are reacting and responding to the Government’s proposal on the headline rate of corporation tax.

One measure we have already voted against relates to inheritance tax. Clause 9 introduces an additional residence nil-rate band for inheritance tax when a home is passed to the direct descendants of the deceased on or after 6 April 2017. The provision, which runs to more than 400 lines, is extremely technical, but it in effect allows parents to pass on a house worth £1 million to their children free of inheritance tax. We have made it clear that the focus of tax cuts should be to help people on middle and lower incomes and to tackle tax avoidance. The Treasury has admitted that 90% of households will not benefit from the Government’s inheritance tax policy. Their priority should be to help the majority of families and first-time buyers struggling to get a home of their own, rather than a further cut to the rate of inheritance tax at this stage.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The previous Government brought VAT back up. We know from his memoirs that the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), believed that a Labour Government after 2010 should increase VAT. A Budget document was even published showing VAT going up to, I believe, 18.5%. I know that that was published by mistake, but it clearly shows that serious consideration was given to that. The previous Labour Government recognised that taxes would have to increase. They had proposals to increase employers national insurance contributions, or the jobs tax. Given that there is such uncertainty about the Opposition’s plans for what they would do in government, the question is whether they would rule out increasing employers national insurance contributions.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I give the hon. Lady an ideal opportunity to do that.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. As we have been in the Chamber, he may not be aware that we have ruled out any rise in national insurance.

[Mr Gauke]

Well, there we go. I am struck by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was very reluctant to say that earlier, but I am pleased that he has been bounced into providing that clarification. [Interruption.] I noticed that he did not answer questions earlier today. [Interruption.] Indeed, he will never have the chance to answer questions at Prime Minister’s Question Time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I thought it was 11 but I could be wrong. It may be 12 by now—who knows?—because that money may be being used to pay for Labour’s tuition fees policy.

[Shabana Mahmood]

For the avoidance of doubt, and for what feels like the 278th time in Treasury debates, I should tell the Minister that the bank bonus tax will pay for one policy and only one policy: the paid starter jobs—the compulsory jobs guarantee. Why do the Government not match us on that policy rather than harp on about their failed rhetoric on the bank bonus tax?

[Mr Gauke]

The Government have a very good record in delivering jobs—sustainable jobs—in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I was just about to make exactly that point. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that in 2012, having already done what all Conservative Chancellors do and put up VAT, the Chancellor sought to expand it by applying it to pasties and caravans in the so-called omnishambles Budget. I have always thought that it was a bit of a shame that that term from “The Thick of It” was used, because if the sequence of events that unfolded following that Budget had been presented to the scriptwriters of “The Thick of It”, they would not have touched it. They would have said that even for “The Thick of It” it was an unbelievable series of events. Yet that is what the Chancellor delivered. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Chancellor tried to expand the scope of VAT, yet today the Conservatives wonder why nobody will believe what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions.

We do not have to go back over the past 20 or 30 years. We can just look at the record of the current Chancellor and Prime Minister on VAT. They like to put it up, and they sought to expand its application. I noticed that earlier the Financial Secretary appeared to rule out an expansion of VAT, but I was not entirely sure whether he had done that deliberately. Will he intervene on me to confirm that not only will VAT not go up—that is according to the Prime Minister, although I do not believe it—but it will not be expanded? I wonder why the Financial Secretary is not biting my arm off to intervene and confirm that.

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful.

[Mr Gauke]

The Prime Minister has been clear: we do not need to increase VAT or put VAT on essentials such as food and children’s clothes.

[Shabana Mahmood]

So basically, both those things are definitely going to happen if the Financial Secretary’s party is elected in a few weeks’ time.

Where are we today? The same old Tories and the same old story. Whatever the Prime Minister has said today simply will not answer the justifiable charge against the Government about why they should be trusted if we look only at their record and at what they have delivered in this Parliament. They broke their promise after the last general election and they will do the same after the next one. At the end of each Parliament since 1979 in which the Tories have been in government, they have raised an average of £13.5 billion from VAT changes. The electorate know that when it comes to VAT and the Tories, actions will always speak louder than words. People know that they cannot be trusted because they break their promises again and again. They broke their promises in 1979, 1992 and 2010, and they will break them in 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The measure has a static cost of £3 billion a year, and behavioural changes also have an impact. That is the hot debate in which the Minister and I have been engaged ever since I have been in the shadow Treasury team.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point about the static and behavioural effects. She will be aware that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:

“We have a choice about a tax rate that would raise £3 billion”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 849.]

Does she believe that putting the 45p rate back to 50p would raise £3 billion for the Exchequer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is precisely to get that additional data that we have tabled this and similar amendments ever since the change was made. Why would the Government go through the process of looking at yield and getting HMRC to produce a report in 2011? That is important, because everyone knew—both at the time and ever since—that there were not enough data to come to an accurate view about yield as the rate had not been in place long enough. To put it bluntly, the Chancellor probably felt that some people might not agree with his decision to give people earning more than £150,000 a massive tax cut, given the state of the rest of the economy and the crushing of people’s living standards on his watch. What he needed to back his decision was a report that said that the 50p rate hardly raised anything at all, which is precisely what the HMRC report said. After analysing a host of facts and figures, the report concluded that a cut that would, by the Government’s initial estimates, cost £3 billion— the so-called static cost, excluding all behavioural changes— would cost only £100 million.

The trouble with the report is that, as everyone acknowledges, there are too many uncertain variables to be anywhere near sure that the figure of £100 million is even close to reality. The report was based on only one year’s worth of data relating to 2010-11. That is a significant weakness, since we know that some incomes were taken earlier to avoid the extra tax. Further detail is now available, including for the tax years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 when the 50p rate was still in place. The writers of the 2011 report did not have those data available, so their report is therefore lacking. That could be remedied were the Government to accept our amendment.

The report attempts to quantify behavioural change. The scale of behavioural change is primarily based on an assessment of taxable income elasticity—basically the extent to which taxable income changes when the tax rate changes. The IFS says that there is a margin of error within calculations for the 2011 report, and that staying within that margin of error one could easily say, depending on taxable income elasticity, that cutting the rate of tax could cost the Exchequer £700 million or could raise £600 million. That gives an idea of the range of figures we are talking about and of how uncertain such projections are.

I return to my central point: more data are now available and could help to calculate a truer picture of the yield of a 50p tax rate as opposed to a rate of 45p. If Conservative Members are so certain that their position on the abolition of the 50p rate is true, why will they not agree to the scrutiny that the amendment suggests?

[Mr Gauke]

I come back again to what the hon. Lady’s colleague, the shadow Chief Secretary, said from the Opposition Dispatch Box, when he referred to the 50p rate as

“a tax rate that would raise £3 billion”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 849.]

Does she stand behind the statement that the 50p rate would raise £3 billion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I was here for that debate and my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary was recognising that the first thing we start with is the static costing. That is the only certain figure we have and that starts us off at £3 billion. We have, of course, to make an allowance for behavioural change and that will impact on the yield, but the calculation for how we get to understanding the behavioural change is the bone of contention between the Financial Secretary and me.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady is making a perfectly sensible point now, but it is a very different point to that made by the shadow Chief Secretary. He did not say, “The static cost is this, but then there is the behavioural cost” and so on. He said that it was

“a tax rate that would raise £3 billion”—[Official Report, 5 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 849.]

It sounds to me that the hon. Lady does not agree with that. She is not claiming that it would raise £3 billion. Is my interpretation of what she is saying correct?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My interpretation of what the Minister is saying is that he is making a valiant attempt at trying to create something out of nothing. As I said, I was here for that debate and I remember that exchange very well. The Financial Secretary and my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary had a bit of to-ing and fro-ing over the static costing, but the rest of the debate and everything my hon. Friend said was absolutely clear. It has always been our position that we start with the static costing and that is not in doubt: it is £3 billion. The question then is: what happens when we allow for the impact of behavioural change? My contention—it has always been our contention; it is exactly what the shadow Chief Secretary said in his remarks in that debate on that day—is that the extent of behavioural change, as envisaged in the 2011 report, was based on an uncertain set of figures and that we have much more data now to be able to get to a certain point.

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am not going to give way again, because I have very little time. The Minister can pick the point up again in debate and I am sure he will do so.

It is not sufficient for Government Members simply to point at the increased yield following the rate cut to 45p and deem that their point has been proved. Just as people brought forward their incomes before the rate was introduced, so people held off taking income until the rate was lowered. We know the increase in yield at 45p was due primarily to record bonuses, which were up 80% in the year after the rate was reduced. If the truth is what is sought, then rigorous analysis is what is required. The blunt truth, however, is that the truth is not what is being sought here by the Government. The decision was taken for ideological reasons. There is no other justification. The abolition of the 50p rate was nothing other than a huge tax cut for the very richest, while ordinary families continued to struggle, and struggle for longer.

There is growth in the economy and that is welcome, but it has been a long time coming. It is ordinary families who have ended up paying the price. That is why we have continued to press home the point about the top rate of tax. While ordinary families are paying the price, we have let the very wealthiest in our country have a huge tax cut. That cannot be right. A top rate of tax at 50p will play an important role towards fair deficit reduction under the next Labour Government. If the Government have absolutely nothing to hide or fear in the facts and figures behind the cut from 50p to 45p, they should accept our amendment to clause 1.

[Mr Gauke]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

First, I shall say a word about the clauses in this group. Clause 1 provides the charge and sets the rates for income tax for 2015-16; clause 2 relates to limits and allowances; clause 3 sets the personal allowance for 2015-16 at £10,600; clause 4 relates to the basic rate limits; and clause 5 sets the personal allowance for 2016-17 at £10,800 and for 2017-18 at £11,000. That is a dramatic increase on the rate we inherited in 2010, when it was below £6,500, and makes good progress towards the target that my party and the Liberal Democrats have set of £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are a number of behavioural effects. Sometimes when we have this debate, there is a tendency for Opposition Members to say, “Ah, behavioural effects. You are just talking about tax avoidance.” Tax avoidance can be an element, but it can also be behaviour that is clearly compliant both with the letter and the spirit of the tax system yet will reduce yield. Increasing contributions to pension schemes, for example, could result in a reduction in revenue. It could be that somebody decides to relocate out of the United Kingdom. It could be—an important point that gets to the heart of why we reduced the tax— that international businesses in deciding where to locate staff might conclude that the costs of doing so in the UK are greater than elsewhere, and that there are better climates and environments in which to locate highly paid staff.

Those are some of the behavioural impacts that are a consequence of having an uncompetitive rate of income tax. That is one of the challenges that Governments have to face. To be fair, the previous Labour Government, for the vast majority of their time in office—this point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales)—did not increase the 40p income tax rate. Tony Blair was very clear that in his view increasing the rate above 40p would be a mistake. We have taken the view that it was right to reduce the rate down to 45p, but the important question remains of what is the purpose of having a high rate of income tax. Is it to raise revenue or is it simply about sending a signal? If it is to raise revenue, we have to ask ourselves how much it will raise.

This is why I return to the comments—I cited them accurately and in context earlier—made by the shadow Chief Secretary on 5 November:

“We have a choice about a tax rate”—

he is clearly talking about the 50p rate—

“that would raise £3 billion, and it is important that we take that opportunity to tackle our deficit, rather than giving that money away to those people who are already in an extremely privileged position.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 849.]

He is talking about raising £3 billion. I pressed the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) on two or three occasions because she was making a different argument. She was saying that the static cost is £3 billion, and then it is a question of working out what the dynamic and behavioural effect will be so that we have a true and accurate position on how much this tax will raise. That is a perfectly reasonable point—it is not possible to disagree with the fact that there is a static number, but that is not terribly helpful in guiding us towards a sensible policy, because we have to know the behavioural effects. Let me be clear. The hon. Lady is clearly stepping away from the suggestion that this will raise £3 billion—

[Shabana Mahmood]

Not at all.

[Mr Gauke]

Given that the hon. Lady has said that, I will certainly give way to her. If she is not stepping away from how much this would raise, I would be interested to hear what she is saying and how much she thinks it would raise.

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the Minister was listening to my speech, he would know that I am asking for a report to give us a better idea of what this measure will raise—including all the data to hand from the additional years in which the rate was in place but not included in the 2011 HMRC report. All I can say to him on the figures is that the only certain figure we have is the £3 billion static cost. I accept that behavioural change will bring that down and decrease the yield, but neither he nor I can say, with hands on our holy books, that we know the exact number. That explains what I have asked for in the amendment. I believe this could be a revenue-raising measure to get the deficit down in a fairer way. The extent to which we can do that is the thrust of my amendment.

[Mr Gauke]

We are making further progress. The hon. Lady has now explicitly said that the 50p rate will not raise £3 billion. [Interruption.] She has explicitly said that, because she has accepted that there will be a behavioural effect that will bring the amount down. I do not know why she is complaining and chuntering, because she has just made the unarguable point that the amount raised will be less than the static cost. That is not the point that the shadow Chief Secretary was trying to make.

Labour politicians are generally very good at saying, “It is a £3 billion giveaway”, in an attempt to give the impression that it will be a £3 billion increase in revenue. I accept that the shadow Chief Secretary probably misspoke, and that when he said that the 50p rate would raise £3 billion, he was getting a little carried away. Labour politicians usually avoid saying, “It will raise £3 billion”, for the very good reason that that is a completely unsupportable position. To be fair to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, she is not making that case today. However, I wish to point out that even the Labour party does not believe that the 50p rate will raise £3 billion, which it clearly will not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Our record across the piece shows that we take tax evasion and criminal activity in this area very seriously. This is a complex matter, but the hon. Gentleman will know that considerable efforts have been undertaken to address fuel laundering. This is a matter we take very seriously.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

The Minister must acknowledge the significant damage that the recent HSBC tax avoidance and evasion scandal has done to the public’s confidence in the Government’s willingness to pursue tax avoiders and evaders, thereby reducing the amount of uncollected tax in the UK. In the Chancellor’s absence, will the Minister now answer the question that the Chancellor failed to answer six times on the “Today” programme? Did the Chancellor ever discuss tax evasion at HSBC with Lord Green—yes or no?

[Mr Gauke]

As I have pointed out, the Government’s efforts and success in dealing with tax avoidance and tax evasion are a huge step forward from what we inherited. On the appointment of Lord Green, the proper processes, as put in place by the previous Government, were undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary looked at Lord Green’s tax affairs, and just as the previous Government appointed him to their business advisory council, so he was appointed as a Minister—an appointment that was welcomed by the Labour party.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Still we have no answer to the simplest and clearest of questions. If we cannot get a straight answer from the Chancellor or his Ministers, we should at least hear from Lord Green—the man who was in charge of the bank and was then made a Conservative Minister—either in front of a parliamentary Committee or through a statement in the other place. Why are the Government parties so desperate to silence Lord Green? What are they so afraid he will reveal?

[Mr Gauke]

We are not afraid of anything. The Government have been more successful at prosecuting criminals involved in tax evasions, more successful at closing tax avoidance loopholes and more successful at getting money in. That is a record we can be proud of.

Tax Avoidance

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not give way; I want to make some progress. Thirdly, we have had much discussion relating to—

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Of course.

[Mr Gauke]

On the quoted eurobond exemption, the hon. Lady will be aware—we have debated the issue on a number of occasions, and it is a quite technical matter—that I made available Treasury and HMRC officials to talk through with her the reasons why it would be ill advised to pursue this policy; it would not raise any significant sums of money, but would just create an administrative burden. I made that offer over a year ago, and the offer still stands. Will she take me up on it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

At the risk of repeating our previous debate about the quoted eurobond exemption, I said at the time that I was fearful that the Minister was patronising me. He assured me then that he was not, and I take that point on board again. I have not taken the Minister up on his offer of a meeting and I have no intention of doing so. The HMRC’s proposal for closing down the exemption on which the Treasury consulted involved instances in which there was no regular or substantial trading of the bonds in question.

We all accept that there is limited liquidity for many legitimate eurobond issues, so such a criterion would be difficult to put into operation. However, we propose to explore the possibility of removing the exemption when bonds are issued to connected persons. We are making a substantially different offer with the aim of closing a loophole that everyone knows is being abused, and on which the Government have failed to act. I should be happy to meet the Minister and talk to him about how we propose to close down the eurobond exemption. I do not have access to the same officials as he does, but I do have another way of closing down that exemption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am glad that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is giving us some answers, although they are not shedding quite enough light on what actually happened. Let us look at the media reports. In September 2010, for example, everyone knew that The Daily Telegraph was talking about the number of HSBC customers who were involved. It therefore beggars belief that the matter was not raised with Stephen Green when he was appointed trade Minister just a few months later.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me put it this way. It was, and is, the case that UK residents can have bank accounts in Switzerland without committing any illegal acts. It is also the case that a Swiss bank can provide banking services to a UK resident without committing any wrongdoing. It was the case, in terms of what was known at that time, that a disc was acquired by HMRC relating to HSBC accounts. The question that HMRC was asking was whether the UK residents whose names were listed within those data had paid the tax they should have. Were they declaring their income as required under UK law? That was what the investigation was about. [Interruption.] I am afraid that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) is making a non-point. It was known that there was an investigation into HSBC account holders—that was in the public domain. However, regarding the evidence we have seen of, for example, bricks of cash being handed out and advice being given to keep several steps ahead of the taxman who is dealing with tax evasion, that information has come to light in the public domain—and, indeed, to Ministers—in the past few days.

[Mr Gauke]

The position is this: Lord Green was appointed in January 2011 and at that point the information about the fact that there was an investigation into HSBC account holders was in the public domain. There was no big secret about that. Of course, I was not privy to the specific conversations that were held, but there is no suggestion that Lord Green had acted improperly, that he was complicit in tax evasion or that he was involved in this particular activity. That could not be clearer.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being generous. Does he agree that Lord Green’s continued silence on what he knew about what was going on at HSBC is creating a climate in which more questions are being asked? Does he also agree that what we need—and what our motion calls for—is a full and frank statement from Lord Green about what he knew? Yes or no?

[Mr Gauke]

It is a matter for Lord Green as to what he says. It is clear that the Government have taken the strongest action to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion. Ministers are responsible for tax law and for resourcing HMRC’s enforcement of that law, so I would suggest that questions about activities that took place between 2005 and 2007 should be directed to those who were Ministers at that time. They might be in a better position to answer them.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on tax avoidance and evasion by HSBC.

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

I welcome the opportunity to respond to this question and to the information released today in respect of an HSBC subsidiary’s involvement in facilitating tax evasion during the course of the previous Parliament.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a long-standing approach to tax evasion that is based on collecting the tax and interest due, changing taxpayers’ behaviour to discourage them from evading in future, and enforcing the most appropriate and effective penalties. Overwhelmingly, this means providing disclosure facilities to encourage tax evaders to sort out their affairs, backed by civil penalties to fine them for the offence. This has been the consistent approach under Governments of all parties. This Government have supported HMRC’s approach by increasing investment in its enforcement capacity and by strengthening its powers, including increasing the maximum fines for hiding money in tax havens to 200% of the tax evaded.

This approach has been very successful in tackling tax evasion, whether by plumbers, barristers and medics in the UK or by the wealthy hiding money in offshore accounts. HMRC has collected more than £1.6 billion from 57,000 disclosures as a result of a wide range of UK and international initiatives. Internationally, since 2010, HMRC has brought in about £2 billion in previously unpaid tax as a result of the UK’s agreement with Switzerland on a withholding tax on Swiss bank accounts, and the international Liechtenstein disclosure facility. In a small number of cases, HMRC will institute criminal investigations into serial tax evaders and those who deliberately conceal information from it, but in most cases disclosure and civil fines are the most appropriate and effective intervention. That is how HMRC has approached the receipt of data from leaks and whistleblowers, including the Swiss HSBC data that were shared with the department in May 2010.

Using the civil disclosure approach, HMRC has systematically worked through all the HSBC data that it has received and has brought in more than £135 million in tax, interest and penalties from tax evaders who hid their assets in Swiss HSBC accounts. HMRC received data from about 6,800 entities, and that, after removing duplication, resulted in information on 3,600 businesses and individuals. Of those cases, over 1,000 were challenged and the cases were settled. HMRC believes that the remainder are compliant but continues to monitor their activities.

HMRC is examining whether it has all the same data that the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has, and that we have seen reported today, and it will be asking the ICIJ for any data that we have not already been given. HMRC received the HSBC data under very strict conditions that limited the department’s use of it to pursuing offshore tax evasion and prevented HMRC from sharing the data with other law enforcement authorities. Under these restrictions, HMRC has not been able to seek prosecution for other potential offences such as money laundering. However, the French authorities have today confirmed that they will provide all assistance necessary to allow HMRC to exploit the data to their fullest.

HMRC’s powers to crack down on international evasion are being further strengthened by the new international common reporting standards, which more than 90 countries have agreed to as an extra tool for closing down the options for tax cheats to pursue this increasingly high-risk practice. This has been as a consequence, in part, of the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the G8. This is further evidence of progress made by this Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Gauke]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

This is further evidence of progress made by this Government in tackling tax evasion and, indeed, tax avoidance—progress that was sadly lacking under the previous Government.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Financial Secretary’s remarks simply do not go far enough. We need much more detail from him as to what the Government have been up to since they were made aware of this information and why they have apparently failed to act over such serious allegations.

First, when the French authorities passed this information to HMRC, who saw it and what was done with it? Were Ministers informed and what communications did HMRC have with the Treasury and No. 10? If there was no communication, why not, given the seriousness of the issue?

Secondly, what information did the Government seek from Lord Green about the allegations of malpractice at HSBC and his involvement in them prior to his appointment as a trade Minister? The Financial Secretary said this morning that the information was in the public domain before 2010. What information was sought and received? Any failure by this Government to question Stephen Green before his appointment would be an inexplicable and inexcusable abdication of responsibility, and the Government must address that point.

Does the Financial Secretary agree that the minimum to be expected now must be an immediate statement by Lord Green, with a full explanation of his role in these allegations while at HSBC; his knowledge of them while he was a Government Minister; and all communication he has had on these issues with Government Ministers?

Thirdly, at any point during Lord Green’s stint in government, did the Financial Secretary or any other member of the Government discuss allegations of tax avoidance and evasion at HSBC with Lord Green? In 2011, HMRC was open about conducting investigations into the UK individuals on the so-called Falciani list. Can the Financial Secretary give a categorical statement about what discussions have been had between May 2010 and now between HMRC and members of the Government about such investigations?

This Government have failed to back Labour in our calls to crack down on tax avoidance, whether on stopping hedge funds avoiding hundreds of millions—[Interruption.]

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

This Government have failed to back Labour in our calls to crack down on tax avoidance, whether on stopping hedge funds avoiding hundreds of millions in tax on shares or on closing the eurobonds loophole, and now it seems that wrongdoing may have been overlooked on their watch. As Richard Brooks, a former HMRC tax inspector, has said, the Treasury and HMRC

“knew that there was a mass of evidence of tax evasion at the heart of HSBC”

in 2011, but they

“simply washed their hands of it.”

[Mr Gauke]

The essence of the hon. Lady’s speech was the accusation that wrongdoing has been overlooked on this Government’s watch, but events between 2005 and 2007 did not take place under our watch—the Labour party was in government between 2005 and 2007. The allegations relate to activity between 2005 and 2007.

The hon. Lady’s first question was on what was done with the information. I almost feel like apologising to the House for going through this information in such excruciating detail. A total of 6,800 cases were looked at and it was discovered that there were a number of duplications within those data: they were not clean data. That left 3,600 and there has been a full investigation of more than 1,000 of them—the remainder appear to have no case to answer—and a settlement has been reached. As a consequence, £135 million has been raised for the Exchequer that would not previously have been raised. If we put that in the context of the very many other measures that this Government have taken to deal with the problem, we will see that it demonstrates a Government willing to address it.

Let me turn to Lord Green. He was a very successful trade Minister and there is no evidence to suggest that he was involved in or complicit with tax evasion activities. If we are talking about complicity and asking about what happened on someone’s watch, what about the City Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)? Sadly, he is not in the Chamber today. Indeed, let us look at the failure of the previous Government to address issues of tax evasion and tax avoidance. [Interruption.]

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Some right hon. and hon. Members may recall the important initiative on apprentices announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement on 3 December. The Chancellor announced that the Government will abolish employer class 1 national insurance contributions for apprentices under the age of 25 from April 2016, building on the removal of employer class 1 national insurance contributions for all under 21-year-olds from April 2015.

Amendments to section 9 and new section 9B of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 give effect to the Government’s intention to abolish employer class 1 NICs for apprentices under the age of 25. From April 2016, employers of apprentices under the age of 25 will pay a zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs on the earnings of those employees, and that zero rate will apply to earnings below the upper earnings limit.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear, apprenticeships are at the heart of the Government’s drive to equip people of all ages with the skills valued by employers. This measure is intended to support employers who provide apprenticeships to young people by removing the requirement that they pay secondary class 1 NICs on earnings up to the upper earnings limit for those employees. The measure is also intended to support youth employment. Under this Government, employment is at its highest ever level while unemployment is now lower than when the Government came to power. However, there is more to do to tackle youth unemployment and ensure that no one is left behind.

The amendment provides a zero rate of employer class 1 national insurance contributions on the earnings of apprentices under the age of 25 from 6 April 2016. The measure will apply to both new and existing apprentices aged under 25 and is not time limited.

The main features of the clause are, first, that there is a regulation-making power to define “apprentice”. There are existing statutory definitions relating to apprenticeships. For example, in England and Wales, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 introduced the concept of an apprenticeship agreement, which is defined in part with reference to “an apprentice”. Because education and training is a devolved matter, and because not all apprentices are employed under apprenticeship agreements, we will need to look at the approaches taken towards apprenticeships in the different devolved Administrations. The power will allow time to discuss the definition with interested parties such as the Skills Funding Agency and their devolved equivalents. The power will also enable us to respond simply to changing statutory definitions and requirements in future.

Secondly, there are regulation-making powers to vary the age group to which the zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for apprentices applies. For example, the Government could in future allow for an increase in the age bracket of apprentices falling into the zero rate earnings band of secondary class 1 NICs.

Thirdly, there is a regulation-making power to ensure that the benefit of the zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for apprentices can be enjoyed only in respect of earnings below a certain level. In other words, the power will provide a means to introduce an upper secondary threshold for apprentices in the same way as we are doing for under 21s. That threshold will be set at the level of the upper earnings limit in the 2016-17 tax year.

The Government’s objective is to make all apprenticeships world class. Around £1.5 billion is spent annually to support apprenticeship training, and the Government are committed to driving up the quality of apprenticeships. We are currently taking forward a number of reforms that will have a positive impact. The Government believe that the measure will, alongside other initiatives on apprenticeships and the abolition of employer’s NICs for under 21s from April 2015, help to address the problem of youth unemployment in the UK.

I hope that, with that explanation, the House will accept the amendment made in the other place.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing Lords amendment 1, which was the main amendment made in the other place. As he said, it enacts the announcement made in the autumn statement that employer national insurance contributions for apprentices aged under 25 will be abolished from April 2016. The Opposition support the measure. There is agreement on both sides of the House and across party political boundaries that we need more apprenticeships; and that youth unemployment, and long-term youth unemployment, remain a problem not only for the individuals involved, but for the economy as a whole. We hope the measure helps to alleviate that somewhat.

The Minister said that there is a regulation-making power within the measure for the definition of “apprentice” and referenced the 2009 Act definition, which relates to an apprenticeship contract. That concern was raised in the other place when the measure was debated. Will he give the House more information about progress in discussions with the devolved legislatures about the definition to be applied? How confident is he that the provision will not be manipulated in a way that enables a reduction by companies of their tax liabilities? The lack of a definition of “apprentice” causes concern that that might arise.

The current quality of apprenticeships has come under scrutiny in this Parliament. A recent report from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills showed that 15% of apprentices are paid below the national minimum wage, and that 28% of level 2 and level 3 apprentices who do not have a written contract are paid below the national minimum wage. We also know that one in five apprentices receive no formal training. Will the Minister consider a stipulation on quality when he looks at the definition of apprentice? That would go some way to alleviating some of the concerns raised about potential gaps in the measure that could lead to abuse, or to a proliferation of apprenticeships that are not of a high quality and that do not add too much to the future prospects of the young people engaged in them. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s further comments on those points.

[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.

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

We have had a helpful and wide-ranging debate on a Bill that will allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to set a different rate of corporation tax from the rest of the United Kingdom, and enable Northern Ireland to encourage genuine investment that will create jobs and growth. It will help rebalance the Northern Ireland economy away from dependence on the public sector, and I welcome the support it has received from all parts of the House. Representatives of six different political parties have spoken in support of it. That mirrors the support received beyond this Chamber—from businesses in Northern Ireland that have long argued for this reform, and we are delighted to have introduced it.

The debate has been relatively lengthy and many contributions were made. I am conscious that there is a further debate to follow, so I am a little constrained by time, but let me see if I can address most of the points that were raised.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) for their support. I think it fair to say that Labour has been somewhat sceptical about devolution of corporation tax. The shadow Secretary of State challenged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the question of when they expressed opposition to it. I am tempted to quote the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward), who said at the 2011 Labour party conference that the proposal to cut corporation tax was “a huge gamble” that

“risks making a bad situation worse.”

He urged the then Secretary of State to

“think twice before he leaps.”

To be fair, such scepticism is consistent with Labour’s general position on corporation tax. Whereas the two parties in this Government have cut corporation tax in this country, and five parties in Northern Ireland want to cut corporation tax there, Labour wants to increase the rate across the UK. Whether it is comfortable positioning itself to the left of Sinn Fein on this matter I am really not sure, but that is where it is.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I hesitate, Madam Deputy Speaker, to stray too far from the terms of the Bill, but the Financial Secretary is well aware that our manifesto commitment is to raise the headline rate of corporation tax from 20% to 21% and to put every single penny of that money towards a cut and then a freeze in business rates, which will primarily benefit small and medium-sized businesses. Will he at least acknowledge that that is a business-friendly measure?

[Mr Gauke]

The sense of direction in increasing corporation tax would be a mistake. I will not detain the House for long on this matter, but I also note that Labour’s pledge is to have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, which would allow it to increase corporation tax to 26%. That would be a major reversal of the progress made by this Government. However, I am sure you would like me to return to the issue of Northern Ireland, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me add my tribute to those that have made to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). Having worked with him in opposition and in government on this policy, I can testify to the vision, tenacity and infectious enthusiasm he has shown. He demonstrates, as does this Bill, what can be achieved by a Minister with his determination and vision, and he deserves much of the credit for the progress that has been made. He also rightly paid tribute to the current Secretary of State, who has demonstrated great skill in making progress on this matter. He put a lot of the momentum into the process, but it has also required her talents to bring us to this point.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made an excellent speech about the history of this progress. He and I have had many conversations and meetings on this matter. He described the progress by saying that we would go forward a bit and then back a bit, and that at times it was frustrating. I can tell him that I shared that experience, but he made a good case for the progress we have made. He also made an important point about the Republic of Ireland’s resistance to raising corporation tax at times when it faced great financial difficulties. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, who described how important it was to the Republic of Ireland to maintain low rates of corporation tax and to grow the private sector.

My hon. Friend made a couple of other points that I wish to address. He mentioned timing and said it would take a couple of years before this measure comes into effect. As has been said by a number of hon. Members, it is important that we set a sense of direction so that businesses can see where things are going in future years, but it takes some time to implement a change of this sort. Therefore, the 2017 timetable is as fast as is realistic. He also asked whether we should have the Committee stage on the Floor of the House or upstairs. That is largely a matter for the usual channels, but given that we want to make progress as quickly as possible and that a limited amount of time is left in this Parliament, it is right that we take every opportunity to make progress on this as quickly as we can. The fastest and easiest way of doing that is by holding the Committee stage, which will involve detailed scrutiny of some 87 pages of legislation, upstairs.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) rightly made the point, as did a number of other hon. Members, that other issues will drive growth and this measure should not been seen as a silver bullet. He also said we should not create a new twilight zone where businesses and individuals can play the tax system to their benefit, and I will deal with that briefly in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) made similar points about tax avoidance and also mentioned the impact of this measure on the UK more widely, and I will deal with that in a moment also.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) made an excellent speech. A couple of points worth highlighting are the need for Northern Ireland to get its financial house in order and to have sustainable public finances, something that is well recognised, and the fact that political stability is important for providing the environment for economic growth in Northern Ireland. I agree with her on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) brought his technical expertise to this debate. He raised a number of points that are probably best addressed in Committee. I do not know whether he was making an application to serve on that Committee, but he certainly raised a number of important points.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) talked about grasping the opportunity to help economic growth in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) made a similar point. She also highlighted other matters, and talked about how to help the Northern Ireland economy. She asked about our engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive. I can assure her that, over the course of many years, there has been significant engagement, that the Northern Ireland Executive have been involved in discussions on the joint ministerial working group and the subsequent design process, and that we have kept the Northern Ireland Executive informed of progress in the design of legislation and taken their views into account when agreeing the final design. There have also been regular discussions at official level between the Executive, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Treasury. I am grateful to the Executive for their co-operative approach at ministerial and official level, and that engagement is continuing.

To conclude the debate, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also highlighted additional challenges that Northern Ireland faces, including improving the planning system and ensuring that the skills base and education system is working for Northern Ireland, and all of those were good points.

Let me pick up on a few of the issues to emerge from the debate. The most significant point, which was raised on a number of occasions, was ensuring that this is about real economic activity. This is not about profit shifting or a brass plate. I can assure the House that we very much share that view. This is not about finding a way in which companies can reduce their tax base through contrived or artificial arrangements, but about encouraging jobs and growth in Northern Ireland. We will ensure that HMRC has the capacity to deal with these matters. For example, when dealing with transfer pricing matters, HMRC will have a risk-based approach to ensure that the system works, so that we do not see the type of activity that so concerns Members.

Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for that observation from my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. I know well how the issue of SDLT in general must be relevant to many of her constituents. On the specific point about HS2, the Government remain to be persuaded that SDLT is necessarily the right measure for addressing the concerns that she identifies and on which she provides an articulate voice in defence of her constituents and others affected by the project. We remain to be convinced, but I know that she will continue to make her argument, and we will continue to look at it carefully. As I said, however, we are not yet convinced that reform of SDLT, or an exemption or relief, would necessarily provide the right support for those with properties affected by HS2.

Clause 1 substitutes a new table A setting out the new tax rates and bands applying to a transaction consisting wholly of residential property and amends the calculation rules for these transactions so that each rate of tax applies only to that part of the consideration that falls within the relevant band. The total tax due is then the sum of the amounts for each band. The new calculation rules extend to linked transactions—those that form part of a scheme arrangement or a series of transactions between the same buyer and seller. In this case, SDLT applies to the aggregate consideration for all the linked transactions.

The new rules do not apply to transactions to which table B in section 55 of the 2003 Act applies—transactions or linked transactions consisting wholly of non-residential or a mixture of residential and non-residential property. The clause introduces the schedule, which makes consequential amendments to SDLT legislation to take account of the reform. The main changes are to the method of calculating the tax due under certain SDLT reliefs. The first relief is for statutory leasehold enfranchisement, where leaseholders of flats club together to buy the freehold of their block. This relief formerly operated by setting the rate of SDLT according to the amount paid for the freehold, divided by the number of qualifying flats. Under the new arrangements, first we divide the amount paid for the freehold by the number of qualifying flats and calculate the amount of tax due on that sum. We then multiply that amount of tax by the number of qualifying flats in order to arrive at the total tax due.

Secondly, a similar change is made to relief for purchasers of multiple crofts from a landlord by a crofting community body under the crofting community right to buy scheme. This relief only applies in Scotland so will only be relevant until 1 April 2015, when SDLT in Scotland is replaced by the devolved land and buildings transaction tax.

Finally, a similar change is made to multiple dwellings relief, which applies to purchasers of more than one dwelling in either a single transaction or linked transactions. This relief was previously subject to a minimum rate of 1%. Under the new rules, the amount will be equivalent to 1% of the chargeable consideration given for the dwellings, which in practice gives the same result.

Right hon. and hon. Members raised several important points on Second Reading. I would like to take this opportunity to explain in a little more detail the Government’s position on some of those issues. First, it has been asked why we have chosen not to apply the new rules to non-residential—commercial and agricultural —property as well as to residential property. That point was raised just now by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). As I said, the market for non-residential property is very different from the market for residential property. For example, non-residential properties have a higher value on average and many are held on market rent leases granted for a small or no premium. At this time, the Government do not feel it appropriate to make changes to non-residential SDLT, although all taxes are kept under review as part of the policy making process. Any change to non-residential SDLT would have to be considered very carefully.

Some concern has been expressed about the possibility of purchasers avoiding SDLT by designating the property as either residential or non-residential in order to obtain a more favourable result. What constitutes residential property is set out in the legislation. Property can be either residential or non-residential, which is a matter of fact. There is no option, as it is has been suggested there is, to flip property between one and the other. I can reassure the Committee on that.

Finally, it has been suggested that the highest rate of tax payable under the new rules might reduce the disincentive to envelope residential property provided by the 15% higher rate SDLT charge, which applies to purchasers of residential property by a company or other non-natural person. The highest marginal rate of SDLT for the purchase of residential properties above £1.5 million is now 12%. However, SDLT is charged at 15% on the whole value for residential properties bought through corporate envelopes for more than £500,000. We are not proposing to make any changes to the 15% higher rate charge. However, in the autumn statement, we announced that the annual charges of the annual tax on envelope dwellings—ATED—would increase by 50% above inflation for the chargeable period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 in order further to discourage the use of enveloping. The Government keep all taxes under review where individuals continue to hold property within corporate wrappers. They should be prepared to pay their fair share of tax.

These reforms to SDLT will remove the previous economic distortions in the system, benefiting the housing market and improving the fairness and efficiency of the tax system. They will give another boost to people looking to fulfil their aspirations of owning the place they live in and will make a real tangible and positive difference to the lives of people up and down the country.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan.

I thank the Minister for his introduction to clause 1 and schedule 1. Let me confirm from the outset that we support these measures, as we did in the previous two debates on the Bill. We will do so again today. As I say, we have already had a couple of debates and it is a small Bill, so many of the issues have been debated thoroughly before. I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with some of the questions that arose on Second Reading. I have just a couple of points on which I would like to press him, and I will be grateful to hear his response in his summing up.

First, can the Minister provide us with an update on HMRC’s handling of the queries that arose when these measures were announced? Can he confirm the number of queries that HMRC had to deal with, clarify the nature of the queries that the public or their advisers raised and confirm whether all outstanding queries have been dealt with?

Secondly, let me press the Minister a little further on the revenue. I put some points to him on Second Reading about the expectations of revenue, but that matter has not been fully covered by the responses we have received. The Minister knows that these measures are expected to cost £395 million in 2014-15, rising to £760 million in 2015-16. Research by Lonres and Dataloft has found that more homes changed hands on the day of the autumn statement than on any other day in the past decade, so one in six of all homes sold in London’s most expensive areas in the last three months of the year changed hands on 3 December. The research by Lonres and Dataloft estimates that, as a result, buyers saved £9.4 million in taxes. Is that in the order of the behavioural change that was expected, as modelled by the Treasury in its costings? I am sure the Minister will repeat that they have been independently certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

I should like to know whether the number of transactions and the cost in Exchequer revenue after the announcement of the measures in the autumn statement are along the lines that the Government were expecting. As the Minister knows, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which applies a rating system to the “certainty” of costings, has said that it considers the costings to be medium to high risk. How confident is he about the numbers, and about the extent of the behavioural change that is expected?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As I said a moment or so ago, in the two years since the 50p rate was reduced to 45p, a greater share has come from the top 1% than in the previous three years. There is a lesson to be learned there. It is probably the reason why the previous Labour Government had a 50p rate for only 35 days out of their 4,758 days in office.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

Will the Minister rule out a further cut to the additional rate of income tax for the top 1% of earners? Will he rule out another tax cut for millionaires?

[Mr Gauke]

The priority of the next Conservative Government will be increasing the personal allowance to £12,500, and the rate at which higher-rate taxpayers pay the 40p rate to £50,000 a year. The truth is that our focus is on ensuring that we can lift people out of income tax, which is not a record of which the previous Government can boast.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will take that as a no. The Minister has failed to rule out another tax cut for the richest 1% of earners in our country. As he signalled in his answer, the Prime Minister has made £7 billion-worth of unfunded tax promises for the next Parliament. We did not find out in the autumn statement where the money is coming from to pay for these promises, so unless the Minister can stand at the Dispatch and categorically rule out raising VAT again, will not people just conclude that the only way the Chancellor can pay for his unfunded tax promises is with another Tory VAT rise?

[Mr Gauke]

Our plans do not require us to raise taxes. [Interruption.] The shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), is heckling, but I have to say that when he was asked that question on television last week, he refused to rule out raising VAT. Our plans do not require taxes to rise, unlike—I have to say—those of the Labour party.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government said in their autumn statement that everything was on course. If the finances are in such a good state, why will they not adopt an ambitious programme of house building? Until we have action on the supply side, we will not be able to get to grips with this lop-sided housing market.

We need to get more homes built, and we also need to deal with the underlying causes of the crisis. For example, we know that too much land is being held as a speculative investment even though local people need homes, and that the trickle of new developments that are being built are snapped up long before people from the area can benefit from them. We also know that our country’s capacity to build homes has shrunk drastically. Fifty years ago, the public and private sectors between them built more than 300,000 homes a year; now we rely on a small number of volume house builders and, as a result, we build far fewer homes.

A number of measures are needed to deal with the underlying causes of the housing crisis and to get the number of homes built that this country needs. We have proposed new powers for local authorities, as well as a help to build scheme to run alongside the Government’s Help to Buy scheme, which we support. We particularly want to see an increase in the role of small and medium-sized construction firms, because the resulting diversity in the market would help to get more homes built and deal with the underlying causes of the crisis. As I have said, we need to see supply-side measures in conjunction with the proposals on stamp duty and the Help to Buy scheme. That would help us to get to grips with the crisis and arrive at a position where the dream of home ownership was not so far out of the reach of our constituents across the country.

I also want to mention our proposal for a tax on high-value properties—the so-called mansion tax. We believe that that is a necessary measure to get an annual sum of money into our national health service, which is in crisis and in desperate need of further, stable funding. It is interesting that the Chancellor has accepted, in his stamp duty proposals, the principle that very high-value properties in this country are under-taxed. Earlier in this Parliament, he introduced the annual tax on envelope dwellings—the ATED—which is described as a kind of mansion tax for high-value properties held by companies in a corporate envelope. Now, the Government are characterising the new stamp duty changes as their version of a mansion tax. I wonder why, as they creep towards an actual mansion tax, they will not make that final leap and simply adopt our proposal, thereby guaranteeing an annual sum for our national health service.

The Prime Minister is reported to have remarked some time ago that the Government could never introduce a mansion tax because the Conservative party’s donors would not accept it. I wonder whether that is the only thing holding the Government back. The truth is that they should go further and adopt our proposal. There is a difference between what they are doing today and our proposal. Stamp duty is a transaction tax, but our tax on high-value properties would be an annual charge that would provide a stable source of revenue for the national health service.

One of the Government’s regular criticisms of our proposal is that it would hit those who were asset rich but income poor. However, we have already set out how that could be dealt with through a system of deferral for anyone with an income of less than £42,000 a year—in other words, a basic rate taxpayer. That would be a perfectly sensible and adequate way of helping those people. We could then fairly and progressively introduce a tax that would help to get the national health service’s finances back on track.

[Mr Gauke]

I should like to ask the hon. Lady a practical question about her policy of excluding from the mansion tax those with an income below £42,000. She will be aware that some of the richest people in this country live off their capital rather than their income. Does she acknowledge that such people could conceivably fall within the proposed exemption?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Let us be clear: the tax gap is lower than it was under the previous Government and yield is higher. By international standards, the UK has one of the lowest tax gaps in the world. We have a good record, but we always seek to do more, which is why at the Budget and autumn statement we have always been able to bring forward measures to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion, and that is a record with which we will continue.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

The Minister has failed to acknowledge that families struggling to make ends meet expect the Government to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, and yet the amount of uncollected tax has risen by £3 billion since he came to office. Is it not the truth that that is both deeply unfair to hard-working families and further evidence that this Government have totally failed to tackle tax avoidance?

[Mr Gauke]

No; we have brought forward 40 measures to reduce tax avoidance, reduced the tax gap as a proportion of tax receipts, and increased by £7 billion the yield brought in by HMRC. The truth is that it is this Government who have acted in this area, and the record of the previous Government does not bear comparison.

Stamp Duty (Housing Market)

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Thursday 4th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gauke]

I recognise that that is not a third of transactions in Hertfordshire, which I suspect is the point that my hon. Friend is itching to make. In 2013, a further 42% paid the 1% rate, which meant that 75% of all residential property transactions resulted in the payment of less than £2,500. Even the proportion of residential transactions involving the 3% rate has remained broadly stable. In 2007, 18% of transactions were affected by the 3% rate; in 2013, the figure was 19%. I argue that SDLT is progressive, because those who purchase higher-value property pay a higher share of tax.

We must also consider who ultimately bears the burden of SDLT. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood referred to the Labour party’s policy announcement of an SDLT holiday for first-time buyers. We implemented such a policy for properties worth up to £250,000 from March 2010 until March 2012. HMRC analysis of the impact of that relief indicated that the majority of the saving was incorporated into higher property prices, which made the relief largely ineffective and poor value for money; what buyers did not pay in stamp duty, they paid in higher property prices.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton made the point that the situation can be complicated by the fact that it is easier to get a mortgage that covers the purchase price rather than one that covers the purchase price and the SDLT, but we must bear in mind that the impact of changes in SDLT can result in benefits to the seller, rather than to the buyer.

[Shabana Mahmood]

On a point of clarification, I should say that my point about a stamp duty holiday concerned a proposal that we made in 2012 about the sale of the 4G spectrum. I acknowledge that the Government proceeded with our proposal in March 2010 for a stamp duty holiday.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for that clarification. If I maligned the hon. Lady, I will certainly withdraw those remarks.

Nearly everybody who contributed to the debate mentioned the fact that SDLT has a slab structure rather than a slice structure. I will make two points in response to that. If we wanted to raise the same level of revenue under a different structure, it would be necessary to increase the applicable rates. That would not mean that people would pay more, but it would mean that rates would increase. We would need to think about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton spoke from his experience of life before he entered the House about difficulties that arose in terms of reforms to stamp duty and their impact on the housing market. Before changing the slab system, which predates 2003—in fact, it goes back to the 17th century—we would have to think carefully about the potential impact on the housing market.

Finance Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will debate later the issues in relation to tax avoidance and shares for rights.

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

The hon. Lady accuses the Government of being ideological here. For the avoidance of doubt, were there to be yet another study that showed that the 50p rate failed to raise any substantial sums of money, would the Labour party still go ahead with an increase in the additional rate of income tax from 45p to 50p?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let us see the report. The Minister has had many opportunities in Finance Bill debates where the Opposition have tabled amendments and new clauses calling for such a report. He has not produced one. I have no confidence that he will go away today and ask his officials at HMRC suddenly to produce a report. If he has such a report in mind, he should accept our new clause, and we can then have that debate. We have said that we will increase the rate to 50p. We believe that that can raise money and will be a good part of a much fairer deficit reduction policy.

The truth is that there was no justification for giving a huge tax cut to the richest in our country. We now know that bonuses are up by 83% for those in the financial sector, while ordinary working people are worse off now and will be worse off in 2015 compared with 2010. Wages will be 5.6% down at the end of this Parliament from what they were at the beginning.

The Government have not ruled out cutting the additional rate back down to 40p. We know that this is the ardent desire of many of their Back Benchers. Perhaps when the Minister replies he could tell the House whether the Government are planning any further cuts. They have ducked the opportunity on previous occasions to confirm that they will not go down from 45p to 40p. It will be good to hear from the Minister whether that is the case. The Government’s priorities are all wrong. Ordinary working people continue to struggle with their finances, and the link between the wealth of the nation and the money in people’s pockets and in their household budgets is broken. This Finance Bill does nothing to change the reality of the lives of millions in our country, yet Government Members want to cut taxes for the richest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The important point here is that the HMRC analysis explicitly dealt with that issue. Yes, there will be instances in which sums are shifted from one year to another, just as happened when the previous Government announced the introduction of the 50p rate. People brought forward income at that point. The analysis took those behavioural changes into account and excluded them, and still concluded that the 50p rate was ineffective in raising money. Given that HMRC has already carried out that analysis and reached that conclusion, which is consistent with the academic research in this area, and given that the IFS has said that no substantial sums were involved, would the Opposition be determined to go ahead with a 50p rate even though the evidence suggested that it would not raise money? That seems to be their ideological position. It would be illogical and unfair to reintroduce a tax rate that was ineffective at raising revenue from high earners, that made ordinary taxpayers pay more and that risked damaging growth.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Minister will acknowledge that the IFS has said that this whole area would benefit from greater research. Now that HMRC has more data, that research would perhaps produce more accurate results. Will he take that point on board and support our new clause?

[Mr Gauke]

There is no evidence that HMRC’s original analysis was wrong. When the Opposition announced earlier this year that Labour would introduce a 50p rate, they claimed that a new £10 billion had emerged that had previously not been taken into account. That turned out not to be the case, however; they got that completely wrong. The data still point in the direction that HMRC’s conclusions are as I have suggested, and there is no reason to believe that the analysis was wrong. The fact is that the 50p rate is an ineffective way of raising money from the wealthiest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think the hon. Gentleman and other Government Members should apologise for the fact that their Government have delivered a huge tax cut for millionaires while households are on average £974 a year worse off. That is a deplorable record and the Government should apologise for it.

We have already discussed at length today the fact that ordinary working people in our country are worse off as a result of this Government’s economic plan. As I have said, households are £974 a year worse off as a result of tax and benefit changes, and wages will be 5.6% lower in 2015 than they were in 2010. We also know that it is the richest 1% of the country who have benefited most from the recovery. With working people facing a cost of living crisis, it is vital that everyone pays their fair share and that we restore public trust. When ordinary people are struggling with their household budgets, which are stretched ever thinner, it is understandable that there will be increasing anger if they feel that others are successfully avoiding tax and the Government are failing to do enough about it.

The same goes for businesses, too. We know that small and medium-sized enterprises are struggling with business rates, for example, which have gone up since 2010. Many businesses are now paying more in rates than they do in rent. Businesses that do the right thing when it comes to tax are understandably frustrated and angry when they see others that do not play by the rules, and they are right to think that there should be a level playing field, so that those who do the right thing are not penalised because others get away with not paying their fair share. High-profile cases of tax avoidances have therefore undermined public trust in company taxation and hit businesses that play by the rules.

Our best measure of how well the system is working is the tax gap—which is effectively the amount of uncollected tax in the economy—which has risen under this Government by £1 billion to a total of £35 billion.

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I know the Minister will say that it has gone down in percentage terms, but only by 0.1%. I assume that that was the intention behind the intervention he was about to make.

[Mr Gauke]

indicated assent.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Focusing on the actual figure is important. It concentrates the mind when assessing the scale of the task both for this Government and the successor Government in 2015. By anyone’s analysis, £35 billion is a huge sum, which, if collected, would make a very significant difference to the nation’s finances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

Given the cuts at HMRC, this Government’s record on HMRC resources, which is a topic I regularly debate with the Minister, is not one for Members on the Government Benches to show off about.

First, let me take the issue of the quoted eurobonds exemption. That was originally implemented to make it easier for companies to obtain finance from the international bond markets by excluding corporate debt listed on recognised stock exchanges from UK withholding tax. Making it easier for companies to obtain finance on the international bond markets is a legitimate objective that we support. However, as covered in a spate of high-profile media stories last year, the exemption can also be used for tax avoidance purposes, allowing companies to shift profits out of the UK in the form of interest payments, without making any tax payment. As HMRC has noted:

“In recent years a number of groups have issued Eurobonds between companies in the same group, and listed them on stock exchanges in territories such as the Channel Islands and Cayman Islands, where they are not actually traded. In effect, the conversion of existing inter-company debt into quoted Eurobonds enables a company to make gross payments of interest out of the UK to a fellow group company, where otherwise deduction of tax would be required.”

The Government consulted on the issue in 2012, with HMRC proposing to amend the eurobond exemption so it would not apply where the eurobond is issued to a fellow group company and listed on a stock exchange on which there is no substantial or regular trading in the eurobond. HMRC stated:

“The effect of the amended rule would be to leave untouched the quoted Eurobond exemption for the overwhelming majority of Eurobond issues. It would deny the exemption only in the case of intra-group Eurobond issues that appear to be undertaken for the purpose of circumventing the requirement to deduct tax at source rather than being directed at the raising of third party finance.”

Despite HMRC estimating that the proposed restriction could have an extra impact of £200 million a year, in their response, the Government stated that they did not intend to proceed with it. Why not? Well, the Government said they made that decision in the “light of the responses” they received around a number of technical issues and after respondents questioned the positive Exchequer effect set out in the impact assessment.

That is simply not good enough. We say that abuse of the exemption can be shut down and must be shut down. Our proposals will explore removing the exemption where bonds are issued to connected persons, such as where a subsidiary issues a bond to a corporate parent or its private equity fund owners. To minimise disruption to private equity funds using the mechanism to simplify investor rebate claims under double taxation treaties, we would explore either offering an exemption for private equity partnerships where all, or the vast majority of, the ultimate beneficiaries would qualify for double taxation relief, or streamlining the withholding tax rebate process in consultation with the industry. So there is a mechanism to shut down the abuse of the exemption. It could and should have been taken up by the Government.

The estimates of the Exchequer impact of closing the loophole range from £1 billion to the Government’s estimate of about £200 million, with many more commentators saying that they would place it at about £500 million. In a letter to me dated 4 March 2014, the Minister said:

“Some newspapers quoted a figure of £500m for the tax at risk. This appears to be based on the unrealistic assumption that the interest paid out of the UK had not been restricted for tax purposes and that the beneficial recipient would not be entitled to gross payment. You will appreciate that I cannot discuss individual cases, but HMRC has confirmed to me that computational adjustments are frequently made. Consequently, the £500m sum is very wide of the mark. Any change here will not raise any significant yield.”

I was interested in that response, for which I was grateful and which I received after I had tabled a number of questions about the quoted eurobond exemption, because it displayed a concerning lack of clarity. The Minister says that the numbers quoted are “wide of the mark” but he does not say where the mark actually is. That is surprising, given that HRMC and the Minister have examined this in detail and have consulted on it, and given that they tell us that “computational adjustments” are regularly made for it. Despite that, still no figure has been given.

[Mr Gauke]

In my letter, I also offered the hon. Lady a meeting, attended by officials, to discuss the matter and explain some of these points to her further. I will try not to be personally slighted, but she has not responded to that offer. Why has she not done so? Is it because of the fear that when confronted with some of the challenges in this area she might find that this is all slightly more complicated than she has been led to believe by one or two newspaper articles?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention and I hope he does not take it as a personal slight that I did not, on that occasion, take him up on the offer of a meeting. I will try not to be patronised by the suggestion that these matters are far too complicated for me to understand and that I am getting my information only from newspaper articles.

[Mr Gauke]

It is quite the opposite: I have absolute confidence that the hon. Lady would have the capacity to understand that this matter is somewhat difficult, but it is often advantageous to speak to the officials who deal with it on a day-to-day basis in order to have a better understanding of it. It would be of benefit to her, and to the House as a whole, to ensure that this debate could take place on the basis of as good an understanding of the matter as possible. By the way, the invitation still stands.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I may yet take the Minister up on it. But it would be a mistake for him to think that our proposal has been made without consulting experts who are very much engaged on the issue of eurobonds. I am confident that the information we have put out as a result of our business taxation paper, launched yesterday, is accurate and that we have considered the different legal and other ramifications of limiting the abuse of the exemption as it currently stands.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

Let us say for the sake of argument that the figure is close to the £200 million or so set out in the original HMRC consultation. I was surprised that the Minister did not think that sum would merit action. The tone of his comments to me suggested that he considered that to be a small sum and so it was not worth going ahead with the attempt to close down the abuse of the exemption. I am afraid that, as an argument, that is not something that I am prepared to buy. Why? Well, in this year’s Finance Bill Committee, we have debated and supported a measure in clause 61 on business premises renovation allowances.

[Mr Gauke]

I would hate it if the hon. Lady inadvertently gave the impression that it was my view that the £200 million was not something that we would seek to address; we certainly would. In my letter to her of 4 March, I said:

“In the small number of cases in which a restriction might be considered appropriate, it was also clear from the consultation responses that the proposal would not be effective in addressing the concerns.”

In other words, the proposal that was consulted on would not have got the £200 million. That is why we did not proceed with it. I want to make that clear, and I am sure that she would not want to give a misleading impression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We have had a lively debate, and I will try to address as many of the points raised as possible in the time available.

New clause 12 seeks to have the Government produce a report on how to reduce the tax advantages arising from tax arrangements that are abusive. I agree that tax avoidance is a key issue, and the Government have made it abundantly clear that we will not stand for a minority of taxpayers continuing to seek unacceptable ways to reduce the amount of tax they pay through contrived and artificial means. That increases the tax burden on the rest of society and creates an unfair playing field for businesses.

Let me explain why I do not think that a report would be beneficial. The Government have taken strong and robust action to tackle avoidance. Since 2010 we have introduced 42 changes to tax law to close avoidance loopholes and make strategic changes to prevent and deter tax avoidance. Those measures include the introduction of a general anti-abuse rule, strengthening the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime, clamping down on stamp duty land tax avoidance with a new range of measures —including an annual tax on envelope dwellings—and numerous changes to business tax rules and reliefs to tackle bad behaviour, including misuse of the partnership structure and corporate loss buying.

We are going further. In the Finance Bill we are introducing new measures to put in place tougher monitoring regimes and penalties for high-risk promoters of tax avoidance schemes, and we are introducing accelerated payments and follower notice measures that will give HMRC the power to collect disputed tax bills up front, putting those who try to avoid tax on the same footing as the vast majority who pay all their tax up front.

Let me address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The vast majority of people pay their tax up front, but it is possible for people working through self-assessment to make use of a tax avoidance scheme and hold on to the money during the—often lengthy—period where there is a dispute. The law is the law, however, and it is the law that existed when the arrangements were made that continues to apply. We are making a change, however, to say that while there is a dispute, the money should be held by the Exchequer and not the taxpayer, just as happens in many other circumstances where there is a dispute in our tax system. This is money that the individual would have already paid if they had not entered into an avoidance scheme. When completing their self-assessment return, they would have notified HMRC that they were taking part in a tax avoidance scheme under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime, and as I said, the taxpayer can continue to dispute the case and will be paid interest should they win. The rights of the individual are therefore not being restricted. Prudent taxpayers should recognise that tax avoidance carries a significant risk of not working and the tax becoming payable, and they should make plans for such an outcome.

In addition to changes in law, we have invested £1 billion in increasing HMRC’s compliance resource, which has reaped huge benefits. HMRC is ever more successful at tackling the avoidance it sees, and it has an excellent record in litigating the avoidance schemes that taxpayers choose to take to tribunal. It wins about 80% of cases, and persuades many more taxpayers to settle before the case gets that far. Between April 2010 and March 2014, it won 94 avoidances cases in tribunals and courts, and in 2013-14 alone, its 30 wins protected £2.7 billion of tax.

The Government will continue to close loopholes in tax law and introduce strategic responses to tax avoidance across the tax system. We will act robustly to respond to abuses that we see. We consult on those measures where we can, although hon. Members will understand that in certain circumstances we must act quickly to close down abuse, so consultation is not possible. A report will add nothing to the progress that we have made and continue to make. Action is more important. We have proved we are taking action to tackle tax avoidance across the board, and we will continue to do so.

In the time available I do not think I can do justice to the fairly lengthy speech on eurobonds by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), but the £500 million figure that she quoted, which is somehow supposed to be at risk, seems to be based on an article in a newspaper. It is not a figure we recognise. It wrongly assumes that the recipient of the interest would not be entitled to gross payment of interest and fails to take into account the fact that under the UK’s double tax treaties the tax would often be repaid anyway.

I extend again the offer that I made in March to the hon. Lady. I have been a shadow Treasury Minister and I recognise the challenges in developing policy in these areas without access to officials. I would be more than happy to meet her, with officials, to talk through some of the practical points of this issue. I think she will find that that £500 million is something of an illusion. In terms of the practical points that she raised about changing the withholding tax system, I ask her to bear in mind the double taxation treaties. Her proposals might not be as easy as she believes.

The alleged abuse of disguised employment in the construction sector is an important point. Some labour providers have created structures specifically designed to avoid tax and national insurance and gain a commercial advantage over those who play by the rules. The Government aim to put a stop to those practices in the construction sector and elsewhere through the new measures introduced in this Bill to tackle false self-employment intermediaries. They will provide a level playing field for compliant labour providers who help to facilitate the UK’s flexible labour market.

The new measures that we are introducing target structures set up to present workers as self-employed when they are really employees. This has been a growing problem in recent years and has spread from the construction industry to other sectors. That is not acceptable. Workers lose out on their rights, it creates competitive disadvantages for compliant businesses, and ultimately the taxpayer foots the bill. That is why we are acting now to stop the abuse. Intermediaries are the biggest mechanism for delivering false self-employment within the construction industry, and as I have said, the practice is spreading. Tackling employment intermediaries used to facilitate false self-employment will not only more effectively target a sizeable section of the false self-employment in construction—a point raised by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—but will stop the spread of the problem to the wider economy.

We believe our proposals are the best way to tackle avoidance in that area. The previous Government consulted on proposals to tackle false self-employment in construction in 2009, which deemed all construction workers to be employed unless they fulfilled one of three criteria. In practice, that would have meant that bricklayers would need to provide their own bricks and roofers would have had to supply their own tiles to be categorised as self-employed. As set out in the consultation response document, analysis suggested that the proposals could undermine legitimate commercial practice and run the risk of capturing genuinely self-employed individuals.

A dormant company is one that is not within the charge to corporation tax at all, whereas the new clause appears to relate to companies that are within the charge but fail to file returns. That is not avoidance but evasion. HMRC uses risk-based procedures and extensive data-matching analysis to identify companies that should have filed returns but have not done so. All such companies are risk-assessed to establish whether they come within the charge to tax. Research suggests that the risk of tax loss is small. HMRC’s activity is carefully targeted, ensuring administrative burdens for compliant customers are minimised while focusing on the non-compliant.

I draw the House’s attention once more to the Government’s strong response to the threat of tax avoidance, including our unprecedented action to close loopholes and provide new tools for HMRC to tackle avoidance. The report proposed by the Opposition is unnecessary and would distract HMRC from delivering on its important work tackling avoidance. I call on the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am disappointed that the Minister will not engage with the practical measures envisaged in the new clause. We have had an interesting debate, but I wish to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As the Chancellor made clear a moment ago, it is right that we address these issues, and that we do so at an international level. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s important work on base erosion and profit shifting is a consequence of the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and we hope that we will see the fruits of that progress beginning this autumn.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

With the amount of uncollected tax rising, the Swiss deal raising less than a third of what the Chancellor predicted and Ministers refusing to close the eurobonds loophole, is not the truth that the Government are totally failing to tackle tax avoidance and to close the tax gap?

[Mr Gauke]

No, it is not the truth. The truth is that there are record levels of compliance yield, as I mentioned: £23.9 billion as a consequence of HMRC’s activity. The UK is leading the way in international reform. There has never been a Government so committed to, nor a revenue authority so successful in, closing loopholes, getting the tax in and making sure that people pay what is required under the law.

[Shabana Mahmood]

While the Minister fails to tackle tax avoidance, overseas buyers are snapping up property in London but not making a proper tax contribution in this country. Is it not time that the Government introduced a fair tax on properties worth more than £2 million, and used the money to cut taxes for 24 million working people, with a lower 10p starting rate of income tax?

[Mr Gauke]

If the hon. Lady wants to cut taxes for 24 million people, she might want to consider increasing a personal allowance to £10,500, which is exactly what the Government have done, rather than doubling the 10p rate of income tax as the previous Government did. As for taxes on property, it was this Government who introduced the annual tax on envelope dwellings, ensuring that there is a contribution to the Revenue from owners and occupiers of properties held in a corporate envelope. Again, I really do not think that on this issue the Labour party has a leg to stand on.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am really disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to my speech. At what point did I bash big businesses? It was not something I said, and nor was it suggested by my tone. I have made it very clear that we supported the cuts to corporation tax in this Parliament. We are simply suggesting a switch spend—it will be in our manifesto for the next general election—which amounts to making a different choice on corporation tax in order to get practical and immediate help to smaller businesses that will make a real difference to them.

Given that the 2% of businesses that are larger have benefited by about £10 billion over the life of this Parliament as a result of a number of changes to their taxation, it is fair to switch our attention to a part of the business market that has been rather ignored. Although the Government have a number of schemes to help smaller businesses, those schemes are not going far enough or achieving the Government’s aims.

Our suggested switch spend is fair. It is not about pitting one business against another or valuing one above another. It is a simple recognition of the fact that 98% of businesses in this country have not received the practical help they need. They are desperate for change on their business rates and we will deliver it. The policy will be in our next manifesto.

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

On support for small businesses, does the hon. Lady regret the fact that when her party was in office, it planned to increase the corporation tax rate for small businesses from 21% to 22%? Does she also regret the previous Government’s plans to increase employers’ national insurance contributions and fuel duty, which would have affected small businesses?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What I primarily regret is that, as a result of the choices they made, this Government choked off the economic recovery that was under way when they came to office. That is the most regrettable thing: it led to three damaging years of flatlining, and it is ordinary people who are paying the price.

Following a vocal campaign by a number of business groups, ahead of the autumn statement the Government decided not to go ahead with the planned 3.2% increase in business rates and decided instead to cap them at 2%. The Government also announced in the autumn statement that they would provide additional help to retailers. That was action—it was relatively late in the day but it was action—but it does not go far enough, and the Government’s policy does not compare favourably with ours ahead of the next general election.

Ultimately, business rates are still set to rise this month by an average of £270. The Government’s autumn statement offer of £1,000 business rate relief was welcome for retailers, but it excluded workshops and offices used by high-tech start-ups. I particularly have in mind small jewellery makers in my constituency, which is famous for the jewellery quarter at its heart. Such businesses will not benefit from the Government’s announcements in the autumn statement and, as I have said, a significant rise in business rates is still envisaged for small businesses.

Our proposal for a switch spend from corporation tax to business rates is a much more comprehensive measure that would offer genuine and more far-reaching support to small and medium-sized enterprises. Given the scale of the problem, our policy seeks to offer practical help that would truly make a difference on the Witton road, the Coventry road and the Soho road in my constituency. The Exchequer Secretary will be pleased to know that it would also make a difference in his constituency. The Office for National Statistics report “UK business: Activity, Size and Location 2013”—a great read—tells us that more than 80% of the 5,750 VAT or PAYE-based enterprises in South West Hertfordshire employ no more than four people, while almost 75% of them have a turnover of less than £250,000. They are therefore not affected by the changes to the main rate of corporation tax, which he himself oversees; they are more likely to be in properties with a rental value of £50,000, and are therefore more likely to benefit from Labour’s proposal to cut and then freeze business rates in 2015-16.

In conclusion, we believe that our policy is the right one for helping small businesses. It meets the scale of the challenge that they face on business rates, and it makes the right choice about how to pay for the policy. We will want to vote on our amendment later this afternoon to highlight the impact of this Government’s decisions and the imbalances in their approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Exchequer Secretary speaks about a positive business environment. Business rates have increased by £1,500 on average since his Government have been in power. Does he think that that has led to a positive business environment for those businesses affected?

[Mr Gauke]

It is worth pointing out that business rates have increased in line with RPI, which is exactly what the previous Government planned to do, and, indeed, exactly what the previous Government did when they were in office. What we have done, however, is double small business rate relief for every year of this Parliament, saving small businesses over £1.5 billion on their business rates bills to date. In the autumn statement we introduced the biggest business rates cut in over 20 years. This package of measures was larger than that proposed by the Opposition. Their proposal would have been worth significantly less than the £1 billion our package cost. Of that £1 billion, over 90% is going to businesses occupying small premises and targeted support is going to help the retail sector on the high street and bring empty shops back into use. The combined effect of the measures is to freeze, or even reduce, business rates bills for 35% of the smallest rate payers. This Government’s business rates measures are both more generous and better targeted than those proposed by the Opposition and benefit all businesses.

Amendment 2, tabled by the shadow Chancellor and his colleagues, proposes a review of the impact of the additional cut in corporation tax with particular reference to businesses with fewer than 50 employees. I understand from the comments made by the shadow Chief Secretary in last week’s debate that what is driving this amendment is a concern about the business environment for small businesses. The Government have done far more for small businesses than the Opposition would have done, including making it easier for small businesses to create new jobs by introducing the £2,000 employment allowance, which will benefit up to 1.25 million businesses and charities in the UK. We are lifting 450,000 small businesses out of employer national insurance contributions altogether. We have made it easier for small firms to invest and grow. We have doubled the annual investment allowance to £500,000 per year so that 99.8% of businesses will receive relief on 100% of their investment in the first year, and we have increased the small business research and development tax credit to the maximum level available under EU law. We have cut costs for small businesses by delivering the longest fuel duty freeze for 20 years and through the £7.1 billion package announced in the Budget to reduce energy costs for businesses and households.

It is worth pointing out that the rate reduction for corporation tax will lead to large firms investing more, with huge benefits for SMEs in their supply chains. Economic modelling by HMRC has shown that the corporation tax cuts introduced in this Parliament will increase long-run business investment by 2.5% to 4.5%. In today’s prices that is an extra £3.6 billion to £6 billion every year, a boost for the whole business community. As John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said last year:

“All companies will cheer the news that Corporation Tax will fall to 20% by 2015.”

This is just one element of what we have done. If Members look at what we have done on business rates, the employment allowance and energy costs, it is clear that this is a Government who are supporting business. I am afraid, however, that, as always, what we hear from the Opposition is policies that are anti-business and that will drive away investment and growth, and no realisation of how the world has changed. The UK needs to compete for jobs and investment. The best way of doing that is through a competitive tax system. I am afraid that the biggest risk to our achieving a competitive tax system and economic growth is the Labour party.

These clauses see us continue to make progress towards delivering a simpler and more competitive tax regime that supports investment, productivity and growth. I urge the House to support the clauses and to reject the Opposition amendment.

[Shabana Mahmood]

We have had a very good and interesting debate. I was a little horrified when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) began his remarks by making what sounded almost like positive comments about me, but he very quickly moved on to comments that better reflected both his politics and mine. He raised a point that I did not hear clearly, but I am sure it was a withering put-down about me not doing my homework. On his criticisms of both the amendment and what it seeks to achieve, I say to him as gently as possible that if he had done his homework, he would know that the Opposition are somewhat constrained in the amendments we can table to Finance Bills and the impact they could have on the Exchequer, so often the best way for us to get a good debate on what we seek to achieve is through asking for a review. I hope that that settles his mind as to the nature of our amendment.

There has been a great deal of discussion today about our proposals to increase the headline rate of corporation tax from 20% to 21%. We would use every penny of the revenue from that tax increase to cut business rates for small businesses in 2015 and to freeze them the year after. Nothing that Government Members have said today has shown that they understand the true impact that business rates are having on small businesses up and down the country. The Government are not prepared to make choices or spending switches to support those small businesses, but that is what the next Labour Government will do in 2015. We intend to press our amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 289.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not, because of a lack of time.

The HMRC report says that all the analysis and estimation is highly uncertain, as does the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The scale of behavioural change is ultimately decided by Ministers, and it is primarily based on an assessment of taxable income elasticity—TIE. The IFS says that there is a huge margin for error. Staying within that margin, one could easily say that, depending on the TIE, cutting the rate could cost £700 million or could raise £600 million. That gives us an idea of the range of figures that we are talking about and how uncertain the projections are.

It might have fitted the Government narrative for them to imply that they knew for certain that the 50p rate would raise only £100 million, but even on their figures and HMRC’s report, there is a huge margin for error and this is all very uncertain. That is not the only thing that was wrong with the analysis. The HMRC report was based on only one year’s worth of data—the data related to 2010-11—which is a weakness in itself. It came too early. Given the history of the introduction of the rate and the Government’s decision to cut it, the reliance on year one is a further weakness in the Government’s argument, because we know that incomes were taken earlier to avoid the 50p rate and as a result incomes in 2010 and 2011 were artificially lower, suggesting a lower yield. Hence our request for a review.

The original HMRC analysis does not give a true picture, was done too soon after the rate had been introduced and was based on only one year’s worth of data. Income figures for that year were lower than otherwise might have been the case because people brought their income forward to 2009-10 before the rate came into effect. No one has redone the analysis so we are still going on the figures from the 2012 Budget. The Government should, at the very least, update the analysis based on the more recent data and prepare the report that our amendment and new clause 4 call for. A comparison of 45p and 50p rates for those on incomes over £150,000 and £1 million would be instructive to the public debate about the top rate, especially as some Members on the Government Back Benches want to reduce the rate to 40p.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady is generous in giving way. When her party announced that it would reintroduce the 50p rate in the next Parliament, she wrote in the New Statesman:

“latest figures from the HMRC show that people earning more than £150,000 a year paid almost £10 billion more in tax”

than was taken into account in the assessment that HMRC made. Is she happy to put on record the fact that the HMRC assessment took into account the numbers that she was talking about, and that the claims that she and her colleagues made at the time of the announcement of the 50p policy were in fact wrong about that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Our analysis was based on projections that were available to us at that time, and on those projections that analysis was correct. The truth is that everyone accepts that all analysis in relation to the 50p rate—HMRC’s analysis and everyone else’s—is uncertain because we did not have the rate in place for long enough to make a full and thorough assessment. Now HMRC has available to it records for the following two years when the 50p rate was in place and it could update the report that was used for Budget 2012. That would give a much clearer picture to all of us who are relying on other figures and forecasts.

Just as people shifted income into 2009 and 2010 to avoid the 50p rate when it was introduced, once the Chancellor had said in his 2012 Budget that he would abolish it the following year in 2013, unsurprisingly people effectively decided to delay their bonuses and income until the new tax year 2013-14 began so that they could avoid paying 50p and pay 45p instead. That is what accounts for the revenue from 45p being higher, which in our earlier debates Government Members sought to rely on in support of cutting the rate further to 40p. The Government clearly reward tax avoidance at 50p with a tax cut to 45p, and their Back Benchers are now calling for 40p on the basis of revenue that they know is inflated owing to income shifting, which may well have cost the Treasury millions in lost revenue—warped priorities if ever there was a case of them.

The Chancellor is on record as saying that he considers tax avoidance to be “morally repugnant”, but as I have just said, he has rewarded a particular form of tax avoidance with a tax cut. I wonder if that has ever happened for people on middle and lower incomes. I think not. This is a Government who always tell us how proud they are of their record on tax avoidance, but I wonder how much effort they put into thinking of ways in which they could protect revenue from the 50p rate. The Government have introduced the general anti-abuse rule, the GAAR, which may have helped. They could have thought about a targeted rule. They could have looked to HMRC to do more. I understand that no specific measures are taken within HMRC to protect revenue from the 50p rate. Before rushing to abolish the rate, the Government could and should have looked at protecting revenue first. The truth is that there was no justification for giving a huge tax cut to the richest in our country. Bonuses, we now know, are up by 83% for those in the financial sector, while ordinary people are worse off now and will be worse off in 2015 compared with 2012. That certainly makes a mockery of the now not very often repeated phrase, “We are all in it together.”

I think the Government have been hoping that if they keep going on about the increase in the personal allowance, people will forget that they have made a political decision, a political choice and a political priority to cut taxes for the richest in our country. The truth is that the Government have given with one hand and taken away much more with the other. As I said, if one looks at wages, ordinary people are £1,600 a year worse off, and the combined effect of tax and benefit changes means that households will, on average, be £970 a year worse off.

This cut to the 50p rate cannot be justified at a time when the deficit is high and will not be eliminated towards the end of the next Parliament. Labour in government will increase the rate back to 50p to help us to get the deficit down in a fairer way. Just as we have said that we want the OBR to have powers to audit manifestos ahead of the next general election, because we believe that scrutiny will add to public understanding about the choices that are being made, so too we think that a review as envisaged in our amendment would help the public to understand the impact of the top rate of tax so that they can make up their own minds about who is standing up for them and other working people like them. Therefore, we will press amendment 4 to a vote.

[Mr Gauke]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Amess, to serve under your chairmanship. Before I deal with our annual debate at this stage in the Finance Bill on the 50p rate, I want to say a word or two about clause 1, which is included within the group, which ensures that income tax will be collected in 2014-15. Income tax is the Government’s biggest revenue source and the annual charge legislated in the Finance Bill is essential for its continued collection. There will be around 30 million income tax payers in the UK in 2014-15, and clause 1 states that these taxpayers will pay income tax this year at the same rates as in 2013-14. The basic and higher tax rates remain at 20% and 40% respectively, and the additional rate is 45%.

Clause 1 also means that the Government are meeting their commitment of raising the personal allowance to £10,000 one year ahead of schedule. The increase of the personal allowance to £10,000 reduces the income tax bills of another 255,000 low earners to zero and gives 25 million taxpayers an average gain of £50 in real terms. In other words, increasing the personal allowance by £560 will put an extra £112 of cash in the pockets of typical basic rate taxpayers in 2014-15.

Allow me to explain how these changes will help the Government to meet their objectives. When this Government came to office, the personal allowance was only £6,475. In 2010, everyone, including those working on the national minimum wage, had to pay income tax at the basic rate on incomes above this low threshold. Let me give an example of what this meant in practice. Someone working full-time on the October 2010 national minimum wage would have had to pay over £860 in income tax in 2010-11 alone. Thanks to this Government’s increases to the personal allowance, this year someone working full-time on the higher October 2014 national minimum wage will pay nearly £500 less than that.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure finally to be able to wind up this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had an interesting debate and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to the naive populism and flagrant opportunism of the Opposition, and we have seen further evidence of that during the debate. He welcomed the fact that this was not a giveaway Budget but one of a Government who are sticking to the plan.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about the DOTAS policy and the way in which those in disputes are being asked to pay their tax before the matter is finally determined. It is worth pointing out that that will apply only when a DOTAS notification has been made or, in future, when the case relates to a general anti-abuse rule and HMRC believes there to be a dispute. None the less, final rights will be determined by the courts.

My hon. Friend also raised a concern about film finance. It is worth pointing out that the problems are a result of the first scheme introduced by the previous Government. The current film finance regime does not have the same difficulties as its predecessor.

The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) welcomed the policy on the annual investment allowance. It is often observed that Opposition Members run down the state of the economy and what is happening in their location, but I make no such complaint about the hon. Lady. She pointed out that more people are employed by Nissan than ever before and that there is much good news about Nissan and other companies in the north-east. I welcome her positive comments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) raised a number of points. He highlighted the need for those who access their pensions to be able to receive appropriate advice. I reassure him that there will be free, impartial and, where wanted, face-to-face advice. He talked about wanting to create a business culture, and I agree with him about that. He also mentioned the new universal technical college in Watford, which I particularly welcome: it will help his constituents and, indeed, mine.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) raised a number of points, including the issue of energy prices. In one sentence he said that prices are continuing to rise, but he then said that an energy provider has announced a price freeze. He claimed credit on behalf of the previous Government for cutting corporation tax, but now thinks we should increase corporation tax. He also disappointed the House by saying that he will not be serving on the Finance Bill Committee this year. Only now am I overcoming my dismay at that news.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) said that this Budget was another step in clearing up the mess we inherited. He highlighted this Government’s efforts and successes on tax avoidance. He raised concerns about how Labour’s policies on energy prices are spooking investors. He said that Labour is the anti-business party and highlighted the help in the Budget and this Bill for the manufacturing industry.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made a speech in which, essentially, she tried to refight the 2010 general election. We certainly welcome that approach, because the Labour party got less than 30% of the vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) took up that battle and made the case against the previous Labour Government. He also highlighted the vacuity of Labour’s current policies. At one point, he sounded very much like Len McCluskey.

I apologise for missing the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), but I understand that he referred to the sunlit uplands of a Labour Government next year. I do not know whether that was an April fool’s joke. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) highlighted the positive mood among businesses in his constituency and welcomed the changes to air passenger duty. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) had concerns about pensioners being able to spend their money wisely and was against raising the personal allowance. He will have the opportunity to vote against both policies this evening.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) delivered a characteristically erudite speech. He highlighted the fact that today is the anniversary of the death of Eleanor of Aquitaine, a mother of two sons who were deadly political rivals—the Marion Miliband of her age. My hon. Friend concluded his speech by saying that we should rejoice at the Budget. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) then spoke and I think the best summary of her speech would be to say that she did not rejoice at the Budget—I think I will leave it at that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) highlighted the very supportive feedback about the Budget measures that he has received from chambers of commerce in the north-east of England. He also highlighted the benefits of our reforms of APD.

The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) set out his opposition to spending cuts, although he did not provide any suggestions about how the deficit could be reduced. I hope that he will serve on the Bill Committee this year—he nods his head—which to some extent makes up for the disappointing news about the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) supported our policy on pensions and the recognition, through transferable allowances, of marriage in the tax system. He raised the issue of ensuring that employment is high, particularly to help young people. Although this was announced in a previous financial statement, it is worth pointing out that employer’s national insurance contributions will no longer be paid for employing under-21s from 2015, which will help to deal with youth unemployment. We are of course introducing the employment allowance—the £2,000 cash-back—for businesses, which will also help.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Will the Exchequer Secretary take the opportunity to do what none of his colleagues in the Treasury team has done? In particular, the Chief Secretary refused to answer this question in debates on the Budget. When all is said and done, will people be better off or worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010? It is a straight question—a straight answer, please.

[Mr Gauke]

The Labour party presided over the greatest recession that this country has seen for more than a century, which had an impact on people’s living standards. It is now up to this party and this coalition Government—[Interruption.]

National Insurance (Contributions) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The exemption is available up to, but not including, the month in which the employee turns 21. I hope that that makes the matter clear to my hon. Friend.

Returning to the Opposition’s amendment, I see little point in the Treasury publishing a review of the level of youth unemployment. The Office for National Statistics is responsible for publishing statistics on employment, and those regular releases are available to the public through the ONS website. There is a limited case for the Treasury intervening and also publishing a review.

In addition, I do not think that there is much value in attempting to estimate the impact of a policy being introduced on a theoretical date. We announced in the autumn statement that employer NICs would be abolished for those under 21 years of age from April 2015. I can understand why the hon. Lady raises the question, but attempting to deliver that a year earlier, in 2014, would increase the administrative costs to business, and rushing the measure through in that way would be likely to lead to cost confusion and the failure of many employers to take it up. Such a tight time frame would not give employers, payroll software developers and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs enough time to update their IT systems. It would also not give HMRC enough time to ensure that the policy could be implemented in a way that did not disrupt its other important IT systems. Given that the policy cannot be delivered in April 2014, it would not be a good use of Government time and resources to attempt to estimate the impact of something that we do not intend to do and that cannot be delivered.

I dare say that I shall return to this matter later, but in the light of those comments, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment to a vote. I also hope that the new clause will be able to stand part of the Bill. It is an excellent measure that will help many of our constituents by increasing employment.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I wish to speak to amendment (a) to new clause 3. I welcome the Minister’s explanation of the thinking behind the new clause and his clarification of how the age limit will be interpreted. His clarification of the measure’s impact on pensions was also helpful, given that we did not have these proposals before us when the Committee considered the Bill.

In general, the Government’s new proposal, announced in the autumn statement last week, will hopefully encourage employers to take on more young people under the age of 21. With youth unemployment so high—it is nearly 1 million—and long-term youth unemployment a real concern, some action is welcome but, as the Minister has anticipated and as our amendment suggests, we have some concerns about how the Government are going about dealing with the issue.

I will deal first with some practical points relating to new clause 3 before moving on to our more substantive concerns about the Government’s approach. I have briefly discussed the impact of the measures with various stakeholders who have been scrutinising the new clause since the Government tabled it. Given that we were unable to scrutinise it in Committee, because of when it was tabled, it would be helpful if the Minister at least gave the House the benefit of his thoughts on the issues I am about to raise. Members of the other place can then take forward some of our concerns if there is more in them.

What impact does the Minister think the new measure will have on young people who are employed part time? As he will know, we have seen a huge rise in part-time employment and insecure employment, for example through the growth of zero-hours contracts, something the House has debated a great deal in this Parliament. My understanding is that many young people who work part time will not be caught by the measure because they earn far beneath the primary threshold. What consideration has he given to the impact on young people who are employed part time, given that for so many of them their first job is part time? As many Members will know, it is now not unusual for young people on the Work programme to be offered only part-time employment of zero-hours contracts, so it would be helpful if he explained the Government’s thinking on that.

I would also welcome the Minister’s view on how the measure might interact with the willingness of employers to take on graduates and the impact it might have on graduate employment. That is not about passing a value judgment on whether someone is taken on when they are 18 or whether employers decide to employ a graduate, but the Minister knows that the other announcements made in the autumn statement in relation to young people were about an increase in student numbers of 30,000 and a removal of student number controls to enable universities to take on as many students as they like. The number of 18-year-olds, in particular, participating in higher education is likely to increase.

It would therefore be helpful if the Minister outlined the Government’s thinking on how those two changes will interact and how they will ensure that they work in a complementary way, rather than skewing one type of recruitment practice ahead of another. Those issues are worthy of much greater deliberation than we will have the opportunity for today, so we might need to return to them, depending on what happens as the Bill makes progress.

I have two other points to make on the practicalities of new clause 3. First, we need to ensure that it is promoted properly to employers, particularly micro-businesses and even one-man bands, which might be encouraged to take on a young person, perhaps a family member. How will we ensure that they know exactly how that will operate and how it will interact with the employment allowance? That is important to ensure that micro-businesses, in particular, are well aware of how the two things align and that there is no confusion that could lead to a decrease in take-up. Secondly, my understanding is that no new funding has been announced to pay for the proposal, so it would be helpful if the Minister set out where the money will come from and how the costs are expected to increase, and not only in the first or second years, but in future years.

There are two main points of difference between the Opposition and the Government in relation to the new proposal. First, it is not bold enough. The Minister will know, because we have discussed it before, about the scale of the challenge we face and what the Government could and should have done to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

New clause 4 is needed as it addresses a tax issue arising under existing partnership tax rules where the immediate entitlement to partnership profits is restricted by the alternative investment fund managers directive—AIFMD. HMRC received further information about this during the partnerships review consultation. Following their discussions with the funds sector representatives and the Financial Conduct Authority with responsibility for the AIFMD implementation in the United Kingdom, the Government intend to put in place a statutory mechanism to address the issue, subject to parliamentary approval.

It is important to note that the vast majority of fund managers would not be affected; only those who operate through a partnership would be affected. Under existing partnership tax rules, tax is charged on profits as they are earned, rather than when they are received. An unfunded tax charge can therefore arise on profits that are allocated to an individual partner of an AIFM partnership and which are then deferred in line with the regulatory requirements of the AIFMD. That is because the partner cannot access the deferred profits in the year when they arise.

The new mechanism that the Government propose is designed in such a way as to meet the Government objective of a partnership review to achieve fairer taxation by stopping tax-motivated allocation of profits in mixed membership partnerships that typically include individual and corporate members. The new power introduced under new clause 4 will support the introduction of the mechanism and will be used to change the relevant national insurance contributions legislation by regulation, once the related Finance Bill 2014 legislation becomes law. It will also allow NICs legislation to be amended in future to reflect any subsequent changes to income tax legislation in that area, to maintain symmetry between tax and NICs positions.

New clause 5 and amendment 2 replace clause 13, which would have removed limits on the Treasury categorising members of limited liability partnerships who satisfy certain conditions as employed earners for the purposes of NICs, rather than self-employed earners. New clause 2 provides an express power to treat LLP members who meet certain conditions as employed earners for NICs purposes. Those conditions will be set out in regulations and will follow income tax legislation introduced in the Finance Bill 2014. Broadly, it will mean that the individual member of the LLP has no or little real economic interest or risk in the LLP, and instead will be rewarded by a fixed salary. Those conditions will be based on proposals on which HMRC has consulted, as part of the public consultation on changes to partnership tax and NICs rules. HMRC has been advised that in response to those proposals, structures with only corporate members were being promoted as a way around the proposed legislation. The schemes involved the individual establishing a personal service company or other intermediary, with that intermediary becoming a member of the LLP in place of the individual in order to avoid those provisions.

New clause 5 provides power to make regulations to achieve the policy objective of the measure, and counteract the artificial imposition of a company or intermediary to avoid the impact of the measure. Regulations will follow new income tax legislation in the Finance Bill 2014. That power will enable the reclassification by regulation of certain LLP members as employed earners for NICs purposes, even when they hide behind a company or intermediary.

The treatment of members of LLPs as self-employed was designed to replicate the position of traditional partnerships. The new clause will ensure that those tax rules are not used to create a tax advantage, and it creates a level playing field between partnerships that have not sought to misuse tax rules for LLPs and those that have done so. I appreciate that that was a rather technical explanation for rather technical new clauses, but I hope it was of use and that the House will agree that new clauses 4 and 5 be added to the Bill, instead of clauses 12 and 13.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful explanation of new clauses 4 and 5, and particularly the technical points and why the Government are no longer proceeding with clauses 12 and 13. I had some concerns in Committee about the impact of clause 13 in disapplying section 4(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. That seemed to be possibly going too far and was ripe for lawyers to have fun with—I was one in my former life. I note that the Government have got rid of that problem and clarified their intention for LLPs by tabling new clause 5.

New clauses 4 and 5 both state that the Government can bring forward regulations to deal with their more technical aspects. Will there be an opportunity for consultation on those draft statutory instruments when they are ready, so we can ensure that no further issues arise as the Government try to implement the objectives that new clauses 4 and 5 are trying to achieve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support for these measures. Detailed proposals in the form of draft regulations will be published early in the new year, and they will tie in with measures in next year’s Finance Bill. There will therefore be plenty of opportunity to consult on those regulations, and I look forward to debating with her measures on partnerships in next year’s Finance Bill. In that sense, I assure the hon. Lady that the measures will receive an appropriate amount of scrutiny, and I hope that the new clauses will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Limited liability partnerships

‘(1) SSCBA 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 4A insert—

“4AA Limited liability partnerships

(1) The Treasury may, for the purposes of this Act, by regulations—

(a) provide that, in prescribed circumstances—

(i) a person (“E”) is to be treated as employed in employed earner’s employment by a limited liability partnership (including where E is a member of the partnership), and

(ii) the limited liability partnership is to be treated as the secondary contributor in relation to any payment of earnings to or for the benefit of E as the employed earner;

(b) prescribe how earnings in respect of E’s employed earner employment with the limited liability partnership are to be determined (including what constitutes such earnings);

(c) provide that such earnings are to be treated as being paid to or for the benefit of E at prescribed times.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may modify the definition of “employee” or “employer” in section 163, 171, 171ZJ or 171ZS below as the Treasury consider appropriate to take account of any provision falling within subsection (1)(a) to (c).

(3) If—

(a) a provision of the Income Tax Acts relating to limited liability partnerships or members of limited liability partnerships is passed or made, and

(b) in consequence, the Treasury consider it appropriate for provision to be made for the purpose of assimilating to any extent the law relating to income tax and the law relating to contributions under this Part,

the Treasury may by regulations make that provision.

(4) The provision that may be made under subsection (3) includes provision modifying any provision made by or under this Act.

(5) Regulations under this section are to be made with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.

(6) Section 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 does not limit the provision that may be made by regulations under this section.”

(3) In section 4B (power to make retrospective provision in consequence of retrospective tax legislation), in subsection (3), after paragraph (c) insert—

“(d) section 4AA (power to make provision in relation to limited liability partnerships)”.

(4) In section 10 (Class 1A contributions: benefits in kind etc), at the end, insert—

“(11) The Treasury may by regulations modify the law relating to Class 1A contributions in the case of an employed earner’s employment which is treated as existing by virtue of regulations under section 4AA.”

(5) SSCB(NI)A 1992 is amended as follows.

(6) After section 4A insert—

“4AA Limited liability partnerships

(1) The Treasury may, for the purposes of this Act, by regulations—

(a) provide that, in prescribed circumstances—

(i) a person (“E”) is to be treated as employed in employed earner’s employment by a limited liability partnership (including where E is a member of the partnership), and

(ii) the limited liability partnership is to be treated as the secondary contributor in relation to any payment of earnings to or for the benefit of E as the employed earner;

(b) prescribe how earnings in respect of E’s employed earner employment with the limited liability partnership are to be determined (including what constitutes such earnings);

(c) provide that such earnings are to be treated as being paid to or for the benefit of E at prescribed times.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may modify the definition of “employee” or “employer” in section 159, 167, 167ZJ or 167ZS below as the Treasury consider appropriate to take account of any provision falling within subsection (1)(a) to (c).

(3) If—

(a) a provision of the Income Tax Acts relating to limited liability partnerships or members of limited liability partnerships is passed or made, and

(b) in consequence, the Treasury consider it appropriate for provision to be made for the purpose of assimilating to any extent the law relating to income tax and the law relating to contributions under this Part,

the Treasury may by regulations make that provision.

(4) The provision that may be made under subsection (3) includes provision modifying any provision made by or under this Act.

(5) Regulations under this section are to be made with the concurrence of the Department.

(6) Section 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 does not limit the provision that may be made by regulations under this section.”

(7) In section 4B (power to make retrospective provision in consequence of retrospective tax legislation), in subsection (3), after paragraph (c) insert—

“(d) section 4AA (power to make provision in relation to limited liability partnerships)”.

(8) In section 10 (Class 1A contributions: benefits in kind etc), at the end, insert—

“(11) The Treasury may by regulations modify the law relating to Class 1A contributions in the case of an employed earner’s employment which is treated as existing by virtue of regulations under section 4AA.”’.—(Mr Gauke.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.



New Clause 1

Post implementation review

‘(1) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs must, after one year, prepare a post implementation review of the employment allowance which the Minister shall lay before Parliament.

(2) The review must consider—

(a) what impact the employment allowance has had on the number of jobs;

(b) what impact the employment allowance has had on wage levels;

(c) overall take-up of the employment allowance;

(d) the geographical spread of businesses, charities and sports clubs taking up the employment allowance; and

(e) the effectiveness of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ strategy to promote the employment allowance.’.—(Shabana Mahmood.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Let me return to my earlier remarks and the commitment I made in Committee, which I have repeated this afternoon, that we will publish take-up numbers twice-yearly. That information will be provided on a regional basis, which I hope reassures the hon. Gentleman that he will be able to monitor take-up in Northern Ireland.

The other point I would make—again, it is a point I made in Committee and on Second Reading—is that there are a number of distinctions between the employment allowance and the NICs holiday that we had in place earlier in this Parliament and, indeed, the Opposition’s proposals for a NICs holiday. What we are proposing is a much easier policy for employers to implement; in fact, it is largely automatic. Those with an up-to-date payroll—that essentially applies to nearly every employer—will find that the employment allowance is automatically applied. Those employers essentially just need to click on a box and then it should work.

Given those reassurances and in the light of my existing agreement to make information about take-up available twice yearly, I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood will withdraw her new clause.

Let me deal with the hon. Lady’s new clause 2, which seeks to require HMRC

“after six months of the Act coming into force”

to “prepare a review” to be published in Parliament. Such a review should consider

“whether there are any administrative or compliance costs”

reported by employers claiming the employment allowance, and

“whether businesses, charities and sports clubs are having any problems in claiming the…allowance.”

The new clause is unnecessary for two reasons. As I have pointed out, the tax information impact note already commits the Government to keep the scheme under review through the communication of stakeholders affected by the measure. As part of this review, HMRC will speak to interested parties to gauge their view of the employment allowance and to ascertain the ways it has been used.

As I said, HMRC talked over the summer to various interested parties, including software developers, charities and small and medium-sized businesses, about the design and operation of the allowance, including the claims process. There are continuing discussions between HMRC and these groups around the guidance and publicity, and they will continue after the launch of the employment allowance next April. These contacts between HMRC and relevant representative groups will provide the basis for a continuous review of the way in which the allowance is working. I acknowledged in Committee that hon. Members will relay any concerns or thoughts about the allowance on behalf of employers in their own constituency. Hon. Members will also recall the commitment I gave in Committee to publish the information twice yearly, as I mentioned. That in itself will provide an indication of the ease with which employers are able to claim the benefit of this relief.

As I pointed out earlier this afternoon, the employment allowance will be very easy to claim. Employers will receive it through the routine operation of PAYE—pay as you earn. Employers will simply need to confirm their eligibility by their regular payroll processes. Enabling the employment allowance to be claimed by employers through the payroll software will ensure that it is straightforward to claim. Employers simply have to indicate yes once in their EPS—employer payment summary—and the claim will continue from tax year to tax year.

After making the claim, employers will not need to pay their first £2,000 of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions if their liability is lower than £2,000 in the first month or quarter—depending on whether the employer pays his PAYE liabilities monthly or quarterly—and any unused allowance will be carried forward to the next month or quarter until it is exhausted. If an employer does not have an employer payment summary on their software, the free HMRC basic PAYE tools package can be used. For the small number—about 2,000—of eligible employers who still submit their returns to HMRC on paper, there will be a paper process to mirror the IT process.

With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on my new clauses 1 and 2, particularly for the additional information he made available on the issues raised by new clause 2. Given his explanation, I am happy to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12

Alternative Investment Fund Mangers

Amendment made: 1, line 2, leave out Clause 12.—(Mr Gauke.)

Clause 13

Members of Limited Liability Partnerships

Amendment made: 2, page 11, line 8, leave out Clause 13.—(Mr Gauke.)





Third Reading

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The OBR is a very good change—one that I am pleased has finally won support across the House—and we do not want to jeopardise its credibility or reputation.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

After those answers, we still do not know why the Chancellor is resisting our proposal to allow the OBR to audit all party spending and tax plans ahead of the general election. We know that in private the Chief Secretary agrees that it is a good idea, so what is the Chancellor so afraid of?

[Mr Gauke]

In 2010, the noble Lord Eatwell said that

“we on this side agree…to confine the activities of the OBR to consideration of the impact of government policies alone. I am sure it is right that the OBR should not become embroiled in political controversy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2010; Vol. 722, c. 16-17.]

I think he made a reasonable point.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I was proud to stand as a Labour candidate at the general election when the economy was starting to grow, but that recovery was choked off by the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

During the Committee stage of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2011, we tabled amendments to extend the national insurance holiday to charities. The employment allowance will do just that. This is effectively our policy, so we are of course delighted to support the Bill. Since the policy was announced in the Budget, we have been calling for it to be enacted immediately, rather than waiting until April 2014.

[Mr Gauke]

I note that the hon. Lady did not respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on whether she supported the Labour party’s policy of increasing employers’ national insurance contributions. Does she recognise that the Labour party’s policy has been to target the NICs scheme at small businesses—not all businesses, as she said—and only for new employees, not all employees? That substantially complicates the scheme, requires applications and shares many of the complexities of the NICs holiday.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. I am not surprised he wants to turn the attention away from his own U-turn. I remind him that our proposal was a refinement and an extension of his failed policy. We could see it was failing and, doing our job as a responsible Opposition, we were suggesting ways in which the Minister might be able to rescue his failed national insurance holiday. I must correct him: the scheme was not for small businesses only, but all existing businesses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the seed enterprise investment scheme, which will provide 50% income tax relief on investments in new start-up businesses. There is also the £50 million business angel co-investment fund, supported through the regional growth fund, the business coaching for growth arrangements and a number of measures that HMRC is taking to help start-up businesses.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

The Minister’s answer on the national insurance holiday for small businesses was simply not good enough, so may I press him again on why he will not expand eligibility for the national insurance holiday to all small businesses with fewer than 10 employees that take on extra workers, as set out in Labour’s five-point plan for jobs?