Universal Credit Project Assessment Reviews

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. That is exactly how we are rolling out universal credit, which is why we are able to make changes and why the process is being done gradually. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, these reports go back some years, since when there have been a number of changes. At one level, I would love to be able to publish the most recent IPA report because it makes it very clear that we were right to expand the roll-out of universal credit in the autumn. I am not publishing it, however, so in effect, I am tying one hand behind my back, because I respect the principle that these reports as a whole should not be published. None the less, in accordance with the motion, I am prepared to provide the reports to the Select Committee.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State is very generous in giving way. He says that he is unhappy that he cannot publish the most up-to-date report, because it would give the Government—I am paraphrasing here—a glowing report card. I wonder what was assessed. Is he not aware that housing providers, housing associations and others say that every single one of their tenants who has moved on to universal credit is now in arrears or has increased rent arrears? Is he not aware of what is actually happening on the ground? I would like him to publish that report, because it would contradict everything that all of us on the Opposition Benches are seeing in our communities.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me turn to the substance of universal credit then. Universal credit is the biggest modernisation of the welfare state in a generation. The old system traps people in a cycle of benefits dependency, incentivising working only 16 hours or fewer a week and preventing people from reaching their potential. Universal credit frees people from those hours limits and lets them keep more of what they earn. Under universal credit, people are moving into work faster and staying in work longer than under the previous system. Once universal credit is fully rolled out, it will boost employment by around 250,000, which is equivalent to 400 extra jobs per constituency. It is improving the welfare system and the lives of those who use it.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman gives the Government the credit we are due for what we are doing on infrastructure. I understand the argument that we need to do more to improve our infrastructure, but let us remember what we have done: more than a quarter of a trillion pounds has been invested in infrastructure since 2010, the average annual investment in the last Parliament was 17% higher than in the preceding one and we have set out plans to invest more than £100 billion in infrastructure by the end of this Parliament.

We are taking measures on infrastructure, but we must put those in context. We also have to ensure that we have sound public finances. The immediate response to the shock of leaving the European Union has to be to work closely with the Bank of England as it carries out its role of providing stability and confidence in our economy. Monetary policy should be the first means of response to an economic shock such as this. We will use the summer period ahead to assess the situation, based on the economic data, and come the autumn we will report back to the House, setting out how we will respond on spending and taxation.

Let me be clear with the House: we continue to believe in fiscal responsibility. This country should not, as it did in the earlier part of this century, make itself vulnerable to economic shocks by letting public spending get out of control. As the Chancellor has made clear—and, indeed, as the previous Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), made clear—our target to reach a surplus by 2019-20 should not be sought in the economic circumstances we now face.

As hon. Members know, our fiscal plans to reach a surplus always came with a clear caveat: if our economic circumstances were to alter significantly and the independent Office for Budget Responsibility were to forecast less than 1% real growth on a rolling four quarter on four quarter basis, that target would be reviewed. With expert forecasters suggesting that we are highly likely to see that risk to our growth crystallise in the time ahead, we have announced that we will no longer seek to bring the budget into balance by 2019-20. As the Chancellor has said to the House, that does not mean that we can go forward without a clear framework for achieving fiscal balance over an appropriate timeframe. We will address that issue in the autumn statement.

I hear the argument that we should go for growth, but fiscal responsibility does not preclude our achieving economic growth. As has been pointed out in this debate, the UK has grown pretty well as strongly as any other major western economy over the past six years, even though we have undertaken a period of getting the public finances under control. The idea that there is a straightforward tension between economic growth and fiscal responsibility simply is not true. Indeed, it is by pursuing a policy of fiscal stability that we have maintained the confidence not just of the markets, as a consequence of which our gilt rates are lower than they would otherwise be, but of the general public, who know that in the end, if we keep borrowing and keep borrowing and keep borrowing, they will have to pick up the tab.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

For the sake of completeness, the Chief Secretary will probably want to thank the central Bank for its quantitative easing programme—flooding the market with money by buying Government gilts—because that is a substantial reason for the very low yields the market is seeing.

[Mr Gauke]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making about gilt yields, but none the less the Government’s credibility because of our determination to address the public finances—with a degree of pragmatism on timing that I fully acknowledge—has helped to ensure that the UK has not been drawn into a sovereign debt crisis or indeed anything like one. That is a significant achievement for this country.

Finance Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I will say a little more about clause 14, but I believe that this is a matter of fairness. For the vast majority of people, home-to-work costs do not have tax relief, and it is right to apply the same rules across the board. If there is a difference in treatment just because an arrangement is made through an umbrella company or other form of intermediary, clause 14 will put those workers on the same terms as everybody else. That underpins the Government’s commitment to ensure that the tax system is fair and treats all individuals who are doing the same thing in the same way.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I understand the Minister’s argument, but this measure will offer a disincentive to many people who have chosen to go down the contracting or self-employed route. Does he share our concern that that may act as a disincentive to entrepreneurship, given that being a contractor or self-employed could be the first step to forming another business and employing other people?

[Mr Gauke]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from but I do not share his concerns. It does not seem justifiable that simply by arranging affairs in a particular way through an intermediary, somebody should benefit from tax relief for travel-to-work costs in a way that someone else does not. All Members recognise how important it is that we have an entrepreneurial economy, and that the importance of the self-employed in our economy is considerable. It does not seem, however, that there is a strong case for saying that a difference in tax relief should apply, which is why we have come forward with these measures. In recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of workers engaged through an employment intermediary, and while many play a legitimate role in the labour market, increasingly some market themselves—at least in part—on the basis that they allow individuals and businesses to maximise their income through claiming tax relief on home-to-work travel expenses. The increase in the use of intermediaries means that large numbers of individuals are claiming tax relief that the majority of workers cannot claim, even when they hold very similar jobs.

We estimate that this change will save the general taxpayer more than £150 million this year, and more than £600 million by 2019-20. That will ensure fairness for all individuals and businesses, regardless of the structure through which workers are employed. In that context, amendment 27 is a technical amendment to correct a point in the original draft and ensure that the legislation fully reflects the Government’s original announcement.

New clauses 1 and 3—perhaps I may anticipate the arguments that we will hear from the Scottish National party in a moment—would require the Chancellor to publish a report on the impact on workers who provide services through intermediaries, and their treatment for tax purposes, within six months of the Bill being enacted. Those reviews would be completely unnecessary because those who provide services through intermediaries are taxed as either employed or self-employed. Some others operate as owner-directors of their own limited companies, and the tax treatment of the income and expenses of those individuals will depend on their employment status for tax purposes.

The Office of Tax Simplification carried out a review that considered the employment status and taxation of individuals working through intermediaries, and it published its report in March 2015. The Government accepted 17 of the 27 recommendations, and committed to consider a further six more. More recently, the Government have received the OTS’s review of small companies and accepted, or will consider further, nearly all its recommendations, including the recommendation that the OTS continues to develop the design of a look-through system of taxation for small businesses to simplify their tax affairs, and a new simple business model that would protect the assets of the self-employed. Following these recommendations, the Government have now formed a cross-government working group on employment status. The group will examine the advantages and challenges of an agreed set of employment status principles and a statutory employment status test. Given the volume and range of work done in this area recently, I would argue that an additional review is unnecessary. I therefore urge Members to reject new clauses 1 and 3.

[Stewart Hosie]

We understand the argument the Government are making against a review, but given that the Minister suggests that this will save the taxpayer—or, to put it another way, cost individuals £600 million over the lifetime of this Government—will he be prepared at least to concede that should the tax yield go up dramatically, taking yet more from the self-employed and contracting community, he might want to revisit the decision he is taking today?

[Mr Gauke]

No, I do not think the Government will be persuaded by that. Were that to be the case, it would suggest that the use of tax relief in these circumstances was even more widespread than we had anticipated. The problem we face is one of fundamental unfairness. I make no criticism of those making use of intermediaries in these circumstances—they are making use of the law as it stands—but it is an unfair outcome. Essentially, where two people are performing identical roles, one is able to gain the benefit of tax relief and the other is not simply because of the way in which they have structured their arrangements. I believe the approach we have taken in this clause is the right one.

Clause 15 makes changes to allow for the extension of voluntary payrolling to include non-cash vouchers and credit tokens. The change will enable businesses to benefit from reduced reporting obligations to HMRC and provide a simplified system for employers. Clauses 16 and 17 and schedule 3 make a number of changes to simplify and clarify the rules for employment-related securities and options. Employment-related securities and securities options are commonly used by companies to reward, retain or provide incentives to their employees. Remuneration in the form of shares would generally be liable to income tax and national insurance contributions. However, if they are rewarded under one of the four types of tax advantage share schemes, the shares acquired are exempt from income tax and national insurance contributions.

Share-based reward programmes are greatly valued by both companies and employees. The Government want to make sure the relevant legislation is as simple and clear as possible. To that end, clause 16 introduces schedule 3, which builds on the Government’s response to the OTS report on employee share schemes by simplifying and clarifying this area of tax legislation. In addition, clause 17 puts beyond doubt the tax treatment of non-tax advantaged securities options, given some uncertainty in the current legislation.

The Government are introducing amendment 28 to schedule 3 to ensure that the trading activities requirements to receive the tax advantages of an enterprise management incentive scheme will continue to apply where a company is controlled by an employee-ownership trust.

If I may anticipate what we are likely to hear, and before I move on to clause 18, I will briefly address amendment 180 and new clause 10, which relate to clause 16. Amendment 180 proposes a review of the impact of the withdrawal by HMRC of its valuation check service for small and medium-sized enterprises, including associated impacts on employee share ownership schemes. This is unnecessary. HMRC continues to operate a service for employee shareholder status and the tax advantage schemes most relevant to SMEs. HMRC has only withdrawn valuation checks for income tax and PAYE that are not part of these recognised employee ownership schemes. HMRC was considering valuations for less than 0.05% of the relevant SME population. As these taxpayers were using professional firms, the vast majority of cases submitted were acceptable. As such, the service added little value and was seen as providing poor value for money for the taxpayer. I therefore hope the House will reject amendment 180.

New clause 10 proposes that within six months of the passing of the Act the Chancellor should publish a report giving an assessment of the value for money provided by each type of employee share scheme. An HMRC-commissioned report conducted by Oxera considered the effect of tax advantage employee share schemes on productivity. This is publicly available. Owing to the difficulty of drawing conclusive outcomes from such studies, in 2012 the Office of Tax Simplification recommended that it would not be a good use of taxpayer money to produce further reports on the links between share ownership and productivity. As with all reliefs, however, the Government will continue to keep these schemes under review and will continue to publish regular statistics on the estimated take-up and costs of each scheme. For these reasons, I urge Members to reject new clause 10.

Let me conclude my opening remarks by addressing clause 18. The Government want to ensure that companies and individuals who have used, or continue to use, artificial arrangements to disguise their income, pay their fair share. These avoidance schemes involve income being funnelled through a third party, with the money often then given to the individual in the form of a loan that is never repaid. In 2011, the coalition Government successfully introduced new legislation to tackle the schemes in use at that time. Many of those who used the schemes before 2011 have still not settled. In addition, the tax avoidance industry has been selling new schemes that are even more artificial and contrived. At Budget 2016, the Government announced changes to address these issues. Clause 18 is the first part of that package.

Clause 18 addresses one type of these schemes by disallowing a relief in the current rules that the schemes exploit where there is a tax avoidance motive. It also withdraws a transitional relief and makes three minor technical clarifications to the current rules to ensure they work as Parliament intended. The reforms make it clear that everyone must pay their fair share. I will not take up any more time for the moment.

Budget Changes

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is the long-term approach that he took as Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are now taking forward so that we can secure prosperity and economic security for the British people.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

We are shortly to hear a statement from the Department for Work and Pensions, and if rumours are correct, it will announce a substantial change to the Budget announcements that we heard only last week. That is likely to result in either substantial extra borrowing or a requirement for substantial extra taxes or, potentially, the shredding of the fiscal charter rules. In any case, there is likely to be a substantial change to last week’s Budget. It is not good enough to announce that in a quick statement; surely it should require a supplementary corrective Budget. Let me ask the Minister whether his right hon. Friend the Chancellor has pencilled in a date for a summer Budget—and if he has not, may I suggest he does so now?

[Mr Gauke]

As the hon. Gentleman says, there will be a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and we also have two further days of Budget debates. As for changes to the fiscal position, in view of the oil price changes of recent months, I think we should look at the consequences for Scotland if it had been independent.

HMRC and Google (Settlement)

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Our international tax system is based largely on that set up in the 1920s, but the world has moved on and the way multinational companies operate has changed significantly. That is why, some years ago, led by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, we encouraged the OECD to establish the BEPS project. We are now seeing the first signs that that is working—that companies are changing their behaviour and the tax system is becoming better suited to the modern world.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

First, the diverted profits tax, set at 25%, came into effect last April. May we have the Minister’s assurance that the Google deal does not cover any of the period when diverted profits tax should have applied? Secondly, the rules on disclosed evasion are clear: tax should be paid at 100%, plus interest, plus a 30% penalty. May we have his assurance that that was rightly not applied in this case? Finally, given the difficulty the Netherlands got into with the Starbucks deal and Luxembourg got into with the Fiat deal, when the Commission insisted they recoup between €20 million and €30 million extra, should the Google deal not be put to Commissioner Vestager to ensure that it complies with state aid rules?

[Mr Gauke]

The United Kingdom does not engage in special deals with any taxpayer. When accusations to that effect were made before, Sir Andrew Park, a retired High Court judge, investigated them on behalf of the National Audit Office and concluded that in every case he had investigated the settlement was reasonable and the overall effect of the arrangements was good. For the very reasons I set out, I cannot comment on the individual matter beyond what is in the public domain. I do believe that there is an important principle here—that tax should be collected on the basis of the law, and that a Department that is independent from Ministers should be able to make the assessment of the right level of tax due under the law without politicians interfering in operational matters. I hope that that has the support of Members of all parties.

National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The proposition of the independence movement was much more optimistic about receipts than the OBR at the time of the referendum. Most important of all, the United Kingdom is more easily able to absorb a volatile oil price than an independent Scotland would be—a point that I would have thought anyone looking at this fairly had to accept.

[Stewart Hosie]

I will not be tempted by the Minister, however generally he put it, other than to say that he is wrong and that the UK Government’s barrel price for gas was higher than that used in Scotland. That is not the point. I completely understand the technical answer that the Minister has just given, but will he please answer the specific question: does this pose a threat to the contributory principle which applies to many of the benefits that people in the UK receive?

[Mr Gauke]

Let us be clear that the OBR’s projections for oil prices—those are the ones that the Government use—were much, much more cautious than those of the independence movement. The black hole that would be the finances of an independent Scotland, had the SNP succeeded in obtaining independence, would have been very considerable, and it is about time that those who campaigned for independence were straightforward with the British people and the Scottish people about what has happened.

The Bill makes no change to the structure of national insurance contributions that would undermine the contributory principle. I am happy to make that explicit to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that is helpful to the House, and I hope the House will support the Bill before us.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The Isle of Man has different constitutional arrangements. What we are proposing is consistent with the conclusions reached by the Smith commission.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) made a number of technical points about how that will work. I accept that a number of details will need to be worked out as part of the fiscal framework. There is a need to agree the methodology for estimating how much VAT is generated by Scotland and by the rest of the United Kingdom. The UK and Scottish Governments will also need to agree the operating principles, including mechanisms for verifying that the methodology has been applied correctly, how many adjustments might be carried out and arrangements for audit and transparency, including publication of results. It is worth pointing out that other countries operate similar systems and could provide a reasonable starting point from which to build.

Again, those considerations will be part of the fiscal framework, and I think that it is agreed on all sides that it would not be helpful to provide a running commentary on it. Of course, there have already been meetings with the Deputy First Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on some of those points. All I will say to the hon. Member for Dundee East is that the UK Government are determined to work constructively, as I am sure the Scottish Government are, to ensure that we reach an agreement that is fair and reflects the appropriate assessment that should be made.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the Minister for that answer; it is genuinely helpful, as he always is. However, will he confirm for the Committee that the agreement will be reached in good time for the Scottish Parliament to consider it fully before any legislative consent motion has to be passed?

[Mr Gauke]

It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to say that I am being helpful. In the spirit of continuing to be helpful, let me say that I certainly hope that that will be the case, but of course agreements will require both parties to act in a co-operative way, which I have no reason to doubt will be the case.

With those remarks, I hope that the Committee will support clause 15 and that I have said enough to persuade the Labour party not to press new clause 20.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 16

Tax on carriage of passengers by air

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

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

There clearly have been issues with some tax inducements being used for avoidance purposes. To be fair, this matter relates more to tax evasion. None the less, it is important that legislation is tested and it is important that we now have a general anti-abuse rule, which we did not have in 2010, to ensure that reliefs and exemptions are not exploited in a way that is contrary to Parliament’s intention.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

In March 2012, a protocol was signed between the UK and Swiss Governments, changing the previous tax agreement. It included the provision for a one-off payment to cover past misdeeds and tax rates of up to 41%. Given the revelations from HSBC, is it the Government’s intention to look again at the protocol, or does the Minister believe that it is robust enough for what we are seeing?

[Mr Gauke]

The Swiss deal is on course to bring in £1.2 billion that would not otherwise have been brought in. Since the agreement was signed, we have made much further progress, with 90 countries, including Switzerland, signing up to the automatic exchange of information, which means that the era of bank secrecy is over and that it will not be possible to hide assets in the way that it was in the past. That is a consequence of the UK’s leadership on this front.

Finance Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s observation. Without getting too much into the details of what we will announce in due course, it is important to point out that there are various means and methods of delivering guidance and that different people will want different things. We have made it clear that face-to-face guidance will be available for those who want it.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Minister said that he is discussing this with the industry and other interested parties. I welcome that because, as he will be aware, on the announcement of this plan, the share price of many businesses in the life and pensions field dipped quite sharply with the market discounting what might happen in future. Will he confirm that he is paying attention to ensuring that the life and pensions sector is protected while offering flexibility to people who have saved?

[Mr Gauke]

The purpose of the reforms is to ensure that there is a savings and pensions environment that is good for those saving for their pension and those claiming on their pension. We believe that the reforms that we have set out will result in greater innovation in this area. We do not think that the purpose of the rules is to protect particular businesses. Nevertheless, the industry has responded well to our proposals. Many see this as an opportunity to improve the culture of saving and have engaged very constructively with the Government. I hope that that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

It is a little difficult to compare a period in the 1980s before the election of Margaret Thatcher, given that she was elected in 1979. What I say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are forecast to have the fastest growth in the G7 this year. Clearly, Members on both sides of the House should welcome that, but we must not be complacent because we have further to go and we need to ensure that we stick to the plan to deliver that growth on a sustainable basis.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister has said he has plans for low corporation tax, and fewer reliefs and allowances—I understand the strategy. He will be aware that the argument is that it helps to establish profitable businesses but is less helpful to growing, investing businesses. Even if he was right, that would rather argue against the Government increasing the annual investment allowance to £250,000. Therefore, is the report envisaged in the new clause not precisely what is required to identify whether that allowance is at the correct level?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for returning me to the subject matter before us, and no doubt you are, too, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in the June 2010 Budget stated that the cuts in the corporation tax rate would more than offset the reduction in investment allowances such that the

“cost of capital for new investment is lower for all non-financial companies, and the rate of return from the existing capital stock is higher”.

That very important point could easily be missed from this debate. However, we also recognise that in the current economic climate, businesses face particular challenges. Having got the corporation tax rate down significantly, making a temporary boost to support and encourage increased investment was both appropriate and desirable. That is why we introduced a temporary generous increase in the annual investment allowance at the 2013 Budget, and we have gone on to double its generosity a year later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We have had, unsurprisingly, a wide ranging debate. I shall try to respond to the points raised by hon. Members in our debate, starting with those relating to new clause 1 and new schedule 1 on oil and gas. I outlined the measure in my opening remarks, and a number of questions have been raised. The question that gets to the heart of the matter concerns the impact on drilling activity and how that affects the UK’s competitiveness.

The Government’s support for the sector over the past few years through field allowances and decommissioning relief certainly has helped to encourage record levels of investment—£14.4 billion in 2013 alone—and supported the market for rigs in the UK continental shelf, where rates are driven by demand. Rig rates in the UK are among the highest globally, so we are not convinced that this measure will drive rigs from the UK continental shelf. In fact, recent press coverage indicates that rigs continue to be attracted to the UK continental shelf after the measure’s introduction.

In addition, the Government do not accept that they should seek to address the issue of rising costs by accepting an unfair tax system where a small group of companies are able to pay almost no UK tax. The new oil and gas authority which the Government announced as part of their implementation of Sir Ian Wood’s recommendations will aim to identify ways to ensure that Government and industry can work together to address cost escalation.

[Stewart Hosie]

That is a valid point to make, but having had the chartering regime in place in the North sea for 40 years, why introduce change now and why restrict it to rigs and accommodation vessels, affecting only one industry?

[Mr Gauke]

On the question why now, it is worth pointing out that following a refocusing of the UK corporation tax regime to a more territorial basis over recent years, and in view of increasing recognition, through the base erosion and profit shifting OECD initiative, that transfer pricing and other international rules do not always provide a fair or consistent outcome, the Government have decided that the need to protect the tax take from those who benefit indirectly from the exploitation of the UK’s natural resources requires domestic action now.

In addition, recent Government incentives have resulted in record investment in the UK continental shelf. It is right that action is taken to ensure a fair amount of tax from activities carried out in connection with the exploitation of the UK’s natural resources, and HMRC ensures that all businesses pay the tax due in accordance with the tax law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

First, I add to the words of Mr Speaker and, perhaps, wish good luck to my hon. Friend’s future wife. He draws attention to a story that we have seen in the last few days: allegations of tax avoidance against Unite and against Labour. Maybe the links between the two are closer than we realised.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

While it is right that we all press down on active tax avoiders, a number of small businesses that find themselves categorised as such are simply unable to pay the correct amount. Does the Minister think that the average of 29 minutes that it can take for the Revenue to answer a telephone call, the fact that the tax code has reached 11,500 pages, the closure of local offices and the reduction in Revenue headcount—things for which he is responsible—might be contributing to this, at least in some way?

[Mr Gauke]

On support for small businesses, HMRC has in place a time-to-pay arrangement. On the service that is provided by HMRC, it is always seeking to improve and deal with telephone calls and letters as efficiently as possible. But we have to bear in mind that the yield that HMRC is bringing in is increasing by £10 billion over the course of this Parliament. HMRC’s performance on phone calls and letters is better than it was when we came to office. It has made considerable progress and that should be acknowledged.

Finance Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

There is a long-standing and widespread approach that tax is a matter of confidentiality between taxpayers and the tax authorities. I say that the approach is long standing; it is the approach we have had in the UK for time immemorial.



It is also the position that applies in pretty well all major economies, and if we were to change that approach, it would be sensible to do so multilaterally. If we introduced a requirement that multinationals based in the UK had to publish information in a way that would not apply if they were based elsewhere, that would raise questions about the attractiveness of the UK as a place in which to do business.

On how to move forward in this area, I would make the wider point that we work multilaterally. That approach was endorsed by Tony Blair, who, in a recent interview, said that if countries move unilaterally, others will eat your lunch, to put it bluntly. I think that was the phrase he used. It is right that we work with other countries to ensure that we have an effective tax system, but I would not favour measures that left the UK isolated in such a way.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am genuinely confused. The Minister said that the measure would go wider than the GAAR as intended, because it covered all a business’s corporation tax, but part 5 of volume II of the Bill states at clause 203(3):

“The general anti-abuse rule applies to…corporation tax, including any amount chargeable as if it were corporation tax or treated as if it were corporation tax”.

The idea that the proposal would widen the measure beyond the scope of the Bill does not appear to be correct.

[Mr Gauke]

I hope I can clear up the hon. Gentleman’s confusion. The GAAR applies to corporation tax—I am not arguing for a moment that it does not—but the point is that lumping in the new clause, which is based on the GAAR, and moving from the GAAR being quite carefully targeted at abusive tax avoidance to essentially saying that everything needs to be published under the GAAR as part of a general anti-avoidance or anti-abuse rule would rather confuse things. It is a pity to muddle the two. There is an argument for greater transparency and for publishing things, and there is an argument for a GAAR, but to bring the two together as the Opposition have done—perhaps that is partly due to parliamentary constraints and so on—sends out an unfortunate message. The two should be kept apart. I hope that has made things clearer for the hon. Gentleman.

[Stewart Hosie]

Well, not particularly, because the other argument that the Minister used is that the proposal might put us at a competitive disadvantage. However, the Bill is clear: one of the priority rules is the double taxation agreements that are already in place, so nothing could be done that impacted on the amount of tax a corporation paid in relation to its tax in the UK and elsewhere, because the double taxation agreements would have priority in any event. The Minister is trying hard to explain why he does not like the proposal, but he is not really succeeding.

[Mr Gauke]

The double taxation agreements are part of the international structure, but that is not the only element that determines whether the UK tax system is competitive. The point I am arguing is that our engagement and the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor represent the right way to go about changing how multinationals are taxed. I would consider, for example, what came out of the Lough Erne summit and, more broadly, measures to ensure that people pay the right amount of tax, as well as the dramatic progress that has been made including, on tax evasion, the exchange of information between Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and indeed the creation of a new international norm based on the American Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. That is a big step forward, and we continue to take steps, leading the way in this multinational effort to give tax authorities new tools to deal with tax avoidance by providing more information about beneficial ownership. All those are steps that can help us to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion. I hope they will be welcomed by all Members of the House.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field).

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government recognise that capital and investment can be very mobile, and that they are more mobile in some sectors than others. We have demonstrated a willingness to listen in this regard. Our principal policy in this area has been to adopt a lower rate, but we have recognised that in certain areas of considerable mobility, we need to respond to what is happening. We have done so through the measures in the Bill, and through the patent box in last year’s Finance Act, which was important in further ensuring that the UK is an attractive location for investment. I shall now give way to another Member of Parliament with a constituency interest in the video games industry.

[Stewart Hosie]

I welcome some of these targeted measures, particularly those relating to video games. I think that they are sensible. I also welcome the tenfold increase in the annual investment allowance, but does the Minister not think it odd that that increase will last for only two years? Given that certain capital investments will take some time, is it not ludicrous that in two years’ time, the general annual investment allowance will revert to £25,000 a year? Might not that create uncertainty? Would it not be better to maintain the general annual investment allowance rate at a higher level, to encourage medium-term investments not only for two years but for three, four and five years?

[Mr Gauke]

There is a balance to be struck, and we have rightly focused on bringing down the rate of corporation tax, not only for larger businesses but for smaller ones as well. Let us remember that the small profits rate was set to go to 22% when we came into office, and that it is now 20%. We have increased the annual investment allowance for that two-year period to try to stimulate investment at a time that is not necessarily the easiest for many businesses. That is part of what we have done to help small businesses during this difficult period. Taking steps to bring the rate down is important; it is a tradition, if you like. It has been our direction of travel in the UK over many years, and I think that we have now got the balance about right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting on the record her opposition to the increase in the personal allowance. I am sure that is something that will be read with interest by her constituents.

[Stewart Hosie]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

Because he is insistent, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister is keen to discuss the change in the basic rate allowance, but he is rather less keen to discuss the 40% threshold, which has gone from £37,000 to £34,000, then to £32,000. The Government have dragged an extra 670,000 people into the 40p tax rate, which used to be for the rich, and that is before this year’s changes. He is rather less keen to discuss that. I wonder why.

Tax Fairness

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

In the last Budget package we increased taxes on the wealthy—higher rates of stamp duty, closing loopholes and putting a cap on reliefs. That is getting far more money from the wealthiest than a 50p rate that failed to do what income tax is supposed to do, which is raise funds to pay for public services. It did not do that.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

One of the reliefs that has been reduced is on 40p tax, which went down from £37,000 to £34,000 and then to £32,000 this year. The Minister has squeezed the genuine middle class—the people earning just over £40,000—not the £400,000 a year middle class. That bit of cynicism will never be forgotten by those people.

[Mr Gauke]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong. People earning just over £40,000 have seen tax cuts and a reduction in the total amount of income tax they pay, because the personal allowance has increased to more than compensate them. The higher-rate threshold has not increased as it might have done, because higher-rate taxpayers would gain more from the personal allowance than basic rate tax payers. Someone on between £40,000 and £44,000 a year is paying less income tax as a consequence of the Government’s policies than they would have done otherwise.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We must certainly understand the wider UK consequences of that. That is why there is a cap. In the Government’s judgment, £2.2 billion is the appropriate level at this point.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that that £2.2 billion is a cumulative sum, and that the annual amount is £230 million?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, that is the case, but we must consider the consequences of that borrowing for the UK’s debt position. That is the level that we believe is right.

As I set out in Committee, the £2.2 billion represents a floor, not a ceiling. The Bill provides for the limit to be increased to more than £2.2 billion with the approval of the House, but not for it to be reduced to less than £2.2 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We must remember that any debt service will be financed by the Scottish taxpayer—that is the context.

We should move on. As I said, any loans will be funded from within the Scottish Budget and included in the UK fiscal aggregates. The Bill therefore continues to give Scottish Ministers the power to borrow in the most efficient and sustainable way—from the national loans funds, as recommended by the Calman commission. In addition, should Scottish Ministers choose to do so, the Bill gives them the power to borrow by way of a commercial loan when that represents value for money.

The Government continue to believe that Scottish Ministers should be able to borrow only by way of a loan, but because overall macro-economic policy will continue to be a reserved matter, and because Scottish borrowing will impact on the UK fiscal position, it is right that this House agrees the limits and conditions of borrowing. I therefore ask Opposition Members not to press amendment 2 and amendments 26 to 29 to a Division.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister suggests that various Opposition Members from various parties do not press their amendments. Is it not normally in order to hear the arguments for them before jumping to such a strange and presumptuous conclusion?

[Mr Gauke]

I do not think it an unprecedented statement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I have served on many a Committee where that has been suggested. I wait to hear how persuasive the case is, but I suspect that I will not be persuaded, and that, to some extent, the amendments may be probing. We await the arguments, and I look forward to them.

New clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), has two purposes. First, it seeks to legislate for the Chancellor, within six months of the day on which the Bill is passed, to

“lay before the House a report on the formula for allocating funds from the Consolidated Fund to the Scottish Government, and the alternative ways of calculating the sums to be paid.”

Secondly, it would require that within

“six weeks of laying that report…the Chancellor…lay before the House proposals for a new…formula which would ensure that the funds allocated to the Scottish Government are no more than 5 per cent. below or above the equivalent figure for each of the other nations of the UK.”

As hon. Members know, the formula for allocating funds from the Consolidated Fund to the Scottish Government is known as the Barnett formula, and as hon. Members will recall, the Bill seeks to increase the accountability of the Scottish Parliament to its people by devolving fiscal powers from Whitehall to Holyrood, and deducting a corresponding amount from Scotland’s block grant.

The Bill does not change the level of funding for Scotland. Future decisions taken by Scottish Ministers will affect the overall funding for Scotland’s public services, because Scottish Ministers will decide whether to increase or decrease devolved taxes relative to the UK. Reforming the Barnett formula is an entirely separate issue from those we are considering in the Bill, and one that the Calman commission did not make any recommendations on. The current formula is an administrative procedure and does not appear in legislation. It is not specific to Scotland, but is a mechanism for allocating funding across all four countries of the UK, so it would not be appropriate to legislate to alter it for Scotland in isolation. The Bill would not be an appropriate place for that

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

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

[Stewart Hosie]

A number of businesses moved to Ireland in the last Parliament to take advantage of lower corporation tax. A number of others moved to continental Europe, to the Netherlands. One of the drivers for this Government reducing corporation tax was to send out that signal. That change will not necessarily be paid for by changes to allowances or spending cuts; it will be paid for in the medium and long term by increased economic growth, which is a consequence of a lower business tax regime. Why has the Minister excluded the potential of growth in Scotland from it having lower corporation tax, and merely highlighted the payment in other ways?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me be clear: I am not making the case against lower corporation tax per se; I am saying that if Scotland had a lower rate of corporation tax, that would have an impact on the Exchequer, and Scotland and the Scottish Government would have to pick up that cost. I do not believe that that is a matter of dispute or that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that. Indeed, we are not even talking about something that we could pursue under European law—I am sure that he will be aware of the details of the Azores judgment. [Interruption.] That point is clear, so I am surprised that there are so many mystified faces on the Opposition Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly anxious to move the debate on, and he makes a perfectly reasonable point. The Treasury and the Government would be quite happy to share our analysis with the Scottish Government, and if that would assist them in their work, we would be pleased to be of assistance.

[Stewart Hosie]

Speaking of sharing information, the Minister has raised the spectre of the Azores ruling, but a comparable and permanent reduction to the block grant in place of the devolution of corporation tax would certainly meet all the state aid rules. The Azores judgment smokescreen that the Minister has thrown up is quite irrelevant.

[Mr Gauke]

The point I was making was that the cost would have to be borne by the Scottish Government, through either increased taxes or a reduction in the block grant. We would clearly have to enter into discussions with the Commission, but I think that he is right in principle, and that such a proposition would comply with the Azores judgment. I am merely making the point that, although the final cost would have to be determined, it would be substantially higher than £2 billion if it was the Scottish Government’s policy to bring the rate of corporation tax down to the level that pertains in the Republic of Ireland.

I shall move on to amendment 18, which seeks to make the date for commencement of all the taxation provisions in the Bill—those relating to the Scottish rate of income tax, the Scottish tax on land transactions and the Scottish tax on disposals to landfill—contingent on the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The process to be used to provide consent is not detailed in the amendment, but I assume that the hon. Member for Dundee East has in mind something akin to the legislative consent motion convention to which the Bill is subject. I consider this amendment to be unnecessary. Similar amendments were tabled by the hon. Gentleman in Committee. We have committed to working closely with the Scottish Government as we move towards full implementation of the measures in the Bill. This engagement will ensure that the Scottish Government can keep the Scottish Parliament apprised of implementation work in good time.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Scottish Parliament voted on the Bill in March, with 121 of the 129 Members voting in favour; this included the Scottish Government. Following the election in May, the Scottish Parliament established a new Scotland Bill Committee to consider amendments to the Bill. This will ensure a further opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to vote on changes to the Bill.

As I said on Report in relation to the taxes to be fully devolved, we made it clear in the Command Paper accompanying the Bill that if the Scottish Parliament was not ready to introduce the smaller taxes in April 2015, we would consider delaying the switch-off of the UK-wide versions of the taxes in Scotland. Should the Scottish Government and Parliament decide that they do not wish to put in place a Scottish version to cover the existing tax base, we will not leave the current landfill tax or stamp duty land tax in place. It will be for the Scottish Government to decide what, if any, arrangements they wish to put in place, once the matter is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I consider this additional requirement to be unnecessary and I am therefore minded to urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, but of course I shall wait with interest to hear his arguments. This has been a somewhat lengthy speech, for which I apologise to the House, but I have attempted to deal with a large number of new clauses and amendments. I hope that that has been helpful, and I look forward to the forthcoming debate.

[Stewart Hosie]

As the Minister has pointed out, there is a large number of new clauses and amendments in this group. I intend to give them a decent airing, not least because I was chastised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) in a recent newspaper article for speaking for barely 14 minutes in a previous debate. I would not want to disappoint her by not providing closely argued contributions on the new clauses and amendments tonight. It is also worth putting it on record that barely three hours for a Report stage is quite inadequate.

Our amendment 29 and new clause 9 deal with corporation tax, about which the Minister went on at some length. This is a tax levied on profits and the Scottish Government are seeking to devolve the competence to use it as key policy lever to promote economic activity in Scotland. It is important to focus not on the dry detail of the amendments, but on what we and any Scottish Government would do with the powers. We believe that corporation tax can be a key element in the country’s overall economic strategy and can promote economic growth and job creation by enhancing international competitiveness and encouraging innovation and investment.

We believe that the case for devolving corporation tax is clear. Over the past 30 years, Scotland’s economy has grown more slowly relative to both the UK and the average of small EU countries than it ought to have done. We believe that for Scotland to fulfil its economic potential, additional levers are required and corporation tax is, I believe, a key mechanism. It can be an important tool in helping to support increased business start-ups, increased business research and development and investment, and in encouraging more firms to locate their headquarters in Scotland—the very reasons, I suspect, why the UK Government announced a lower corporation tax rate and a strategy for reducing it further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

No, not on that point.

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

I will give way to the Minister.

[Mr Gauke]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to move on from the subject of corporation tax, but I seek clarification, I think with good reason. He said that he understood the Azores judgment and what was necessary for compliance with it. He said that if the yield from corporation tax went to the Scottish Government, the block grant would be reduced and everything would be fine. All that is correct. However, if the Scottish Government reduce corporation tax, there will be a cost. He has not made clear how the Scottish Government would deal with that. Would they do so by spending less or by increasing other taxes?

[Stewart Hosie]

Evidence that I have seen in a significant number of companies suggests that the reductions in block grant would be phased in. We see a trend increase in business tax yield as business tax rates are reduced. I am sure that the Minister has seen similar figures, which may have driven some of his own policy decisions. I suspect that Scotland would be unique if we did not follow a pattern that has been seen time after time in other countries.

[Mr Reid]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

I will give way one more time to the Minister.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman is presenting the Laffer curve argument. He suggests that a corporation tax cut could pay for itself. As he knows, I support that idea and am looking at what the Government are doing in that connection. It is not altogether surprising that there are advantages in reducing corporation tax, but, initially at the very least, it comes at a cost. We had to put that in the Red Book. Does he believe that there would be no cost, or does he believe that the tax cuts would immediately pay for themselves?

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has read the Command Paper, which was signed off by both the Secretary of State for Scotland and I. The debate relates to taxation, so it seems perfectly appropriate for a Treasury Minister to respond. Indeed, I warmly welcome the kind response I got from the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). It is very unusual for me to be described as a “big gun” but I am none the less grateful for those words. The Scotland Office and the Treasury have worked closely on the Bill, and in particular on the provisions that we are debating, and I am pleased to continue that co-ordination.

[Stewart Hosie]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I have never given way quite so often, but perhaps this is the way it works.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister suggests that he signed off the Command Paper with the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the names on it are those of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am sure the Minister’s name is in there somewhere, but it would be good if he could tell us where.

[Mr Gauke]

I only wish I could have signed it off—such is my enthusiasm for the Command Paper. I work closely with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, however, and the point I made was that the Treasury signed off the Command Paper. We work happily as one Government, so I am pleased to be able to respond to the amendments—assuming I now have the chance to do so.

The Government’s proposals in the Bill facilitate the largest transfer of power from the United Kingdom to Scotland since the creation of the UK. By devolving stamp duty land tax and the power to set a Scottish rate of income tax, the Scottish Parliament will be able to raise approximately one third of its own budget, thereby significantly improving its financial accountability. Only last Thursday, the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly to endorse the Bill—121 in favour, three against and one abstention. To devolve additional taxes now, as the hon. Member for Dundee East argues, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament would be thoroughly inappropriate. There has been a long consultative process that both the UK Government and the Scottish Government and Parliament have been through, so to include the devolution of additional taxes now, on a whim, would not be the right course of action.

As well as those general points, there are some specific reasons why these taxes should not be devolved now in the Bill. I shall deal with those in a little detail. First, on amendment 37 and new clause 8, the Calman commission did not recommend that fuel duty be devolved. It concluded that different fuel duty rates would make artificial opportunities for cross-border shopping, creating economic distortions. More significantly, however, it highlighted the EU energy products directive that sets a principle of one rate of fuel duty per member state. Devolving fuel duty to the Scottish Parliament would require the EU to grant the UK a derogation from this directive, and the Calman commission acknowledged that it would be unlikely to be granted. A contrast can be drawn with the rural fuel discount derogation that the Government are pursuing.

Amendment 58 and new clause 15 relate to quarrying and mining. Although the Calman commission recommended devolving the aggregates levy, a tax on quarrying and mining is much wider and has not been endorsed by the Scottish Parliament. Even if the scope of the amendment was narrowed to devolve only aggregates extracted from the land, as Calman recommended, I would not accept it at this point. The aggregates levy is currently under legal challenge in the EU courts, and it would be reckless to devolve it while the challenge remains. I will not devolve a tax to the Scottish Parliament where there is any risk that it could subsequently be deemed to be illegal. That would be a substantial risk for the Scottish Parliament, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland addressed many of those issues earlier, but let me make this point about the devolution of tax. It is important to have the consent of the Scottish Parliament, which is why we are proceeding as we are, which is not the approach of the Scottish National party. Neither this Government nor, I believe, the vast majority of hon. Members would seriously consider making amendments that affected the powers of the Scottish Parliament without its consent. However, as has been said, devolution is a process, not an event. This is an enabling Bill. The Scottish Parliament can ask for additional tax powers over the course of time and have them duly considered. Clause 24 gives the power to add new devolved taxes. The Command Paper accompanying this Bill sets out the process for taking forward the devolution of the aggregates levy and air passenger duty, but any future devolution must happen with the wholehearted consent of the Scottish Parliament, not just following the proposals of a minority of Members of this House. Given that, I ask the hon. Member for Dundee East to withdraw his amendment.

[Stewart Hosie]

Let me respond briefly to some of the key points raised. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) talked about a fuel duty regulator, as he has done on a number of occasions. He knows very well the difficulties faced by hauliers and others in the south-west of Scotland. He asked whether I would give up on the proposal in this place if it were delivered in Scotland. I said in my speech that if the UK Government would not deliver it, the powers should be devolved, so that the Scottish Government could act. I simply want fair play on fuel. It is important that the power should be devolved, so that the Scottish Government can act if the UK Government will not.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) made an interesting speech, as she always does. She valiantly tried to defend the lack of Labour attempts to strengthen the Bill. She spoke in favour of Calman, but rejected one of the key Calman recommendations, which was the aggregates levy proposal. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) also made an interesting speech. She raised the notion of—I think—a £600 million loss every year if there was a 10p cut in corporation tax. No one has ever suggested an immediate 10p cut in corporation tax. That was a straw man, set up to be knocked down, and bears no relation to the policy of any party in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

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

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

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister will recall that on a small number of occasions an anti-avoidance measure went further back than the start of a financial year. In those circumstances, would he have to come back and seek a different power so that an avoidance measure in England went further back than the start of the financial year in Scotland? I would not like to see such an irregularity.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman is right. There are circumstances in which anti-avoidance measures have been retrospective and go back further. As I say, the power would take us only to the beginning of the relevant tax year in which the order is made. Other sorts of anti-avoidance measure would not fall under this power because of the constraint within it. The Bill is not designed to meet that purpose. I hope that provides the hon. Gentleman with some clarity. I hope also that my comments on amendments 68 to 70 are helpful and that he now feels able to withdraw the amendments.

Amendments 42 to 44 and 47 to 50 seek to make the process by which the Treasury appoints tax years to bring into effect the provisions relating to the new Scottish rate of income tax and the effective date that UK stamp duty land tax and landfill tax are disapplied subject to the consent of the Scottish Parliament. This is to be indicated by way of resolution. I consider this to be unnecessary. We have stated our intention to commence the Scottish rate of income tax from April 2016, and to devolve the landfill tax and stamp duty land tax by April 2015.

The Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament welcomed these proposals, as it stated in its report. The Scottish Parliament has now given its approval to the measures included in the Bill through the legislative consent motion. The Bill provides for the new Scottish rate of income tax to be brought into effect in such tax year as is appointed by the Treasury as a precautionary measure. Appointed day orders will be issued in advance of disapplying the stamp duty land tax and landfill tax. We have also tabled Government amendments, which I will come to later, to ensure that this process is completed by order made by statutory instrument so that these are printed and published for transparency.

[Mr Gauke]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to deal with the amendments first, as I stated in my opening remarks. I will then deal with some of the questions that have been raised as a consequence, and touch on some of the administrative consequences of the changes.

We made it clear in the Command Paper that accompanied the Bill that if the Scottish Parliament is not ready to introduce the smaller taxes in April 2015, we would consider delaying the switch-off of the UK-wide versions of the taxes in Scotland. That said, we must be clear that clauses 29 and 31 enable the disapplication of the existing tax in Scotland. Should the Scottish Government and Parliament decide that they do not wish to put in place a Scottish version to cover the existing tax base, we will not leave the current stamp duty land tax or landfill tax in place. It will be for the Scottish Government to decide what, if any, arrangements they wish to put in place in this area once it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

[Stewart Hosie]

That is clear. The problem arises if the timing is wrong. Why would the Minister disapply the existing legislation and leave a gap for the Scottish Government to fill at some point in the future? Why should disapplication not happen until the Scottish Parliament gives its explicit consent? Making that happen properly would match the respect agenda and avoid any difficulties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 30 provides for the devolved tax on the disposal of waste to landfill sites in Scotland. One Calman commission recommendation on tax was to devolve landfill tax, which was endorsed by the Scottish Parliament when it voted its consent on 10 March.

The tax will be a devolved tax for the purposes of part 4A of the Scotland Act 1998, which is introduced by clause 24. That means that the Scottish Government and Parliament will have complete control over the design and administration of the Scottish landfill tax, allowing them to complement their wider waste policies and to legislate to introduce a devolved tax to replace the existing UK landfill tax in Scotland. I hope that answers the main questions asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

The revenue raised by the tax will remain in Scotland for use by the Scottish Government. Clause 30 provides as blank a canvas as possible for the Scottish Government to design their tax by simply providing the power to introduce a tax on material disposed of as waste to landfill sites in Scotland. It will come into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent, which will allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the devolved tax, and for the Scottish Government to make the necessary administrative arrangements. The clause, however, provides that the devolved tax cannot apply to disposals made before the date on which the existing UK landfill tax is disapplied in Scotland, as provided in clause 31.

To answer the question on landfill tax competition, the Government are fully devolving that matter. Those setting the structure and rates of landfill tax in Scotland will clearly want to take into account the factors that were raised, such is the nature of devolution in such areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Disapplication of UK landfill tax

Amendment made: 64, page 24, line 8, after ‘Treasury’, insert ‘by order’.—(Mr Gauke.)

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 32

Borrowing by the Scottish Ministers

[Stewart Hosie]

I beg to move amendment 51, page 24, line 20, leave out from ‘which’ to end of line 22 and insert—

‘are required by them to meet current expenditure because of a shortfall in receipts from the Scottish rate of income tax or devolved taxes.’.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I propose to deal with amendments 51 to 57 first, and I recognise that, as has been said, they partly overlap with the report from the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out last week, the UK Government will consider the recommendations in the Committee’s report thoroughly, alongside an assessment of the impact on the UK fiscal position.

The purpose of amendment 51 is twofold. First, it would remove the requirement for Scottish Ministers to access revenue borrowing to meet current expenditure only in accordance with rules determined by the Treasury. Secondly, it would allow such borrowing to be accessed due to a shortfall in outturn receipts against forecast receipts from devolved taxes and the Scottish rate of income tax. I will deal with each of those in turn.

On the need for borrowing by Scottish Ministers to comply with rules determined by the Treasury, I note that the report from the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament—where the Scottish Government voted with the motion—recognised the need for the UK Government to constrain the borrowing powers. I am delighted that there appears to be a consensus in the Committee that nobody wants to do anything silly with the public finances, as one could have been forgiven for thinking that that has not been the case over recent years.

There are important reasons for Scottish Ministers to comply with Treasury rules on borrowing. The Bill’s new borrowing powers will sit within the UK fiscal framework as a whole; interest on Scottish borrowing will be included in the total UK public sector borrowing aggregates. As overall macro-economic policy will continue to be a reserved matter, it is necessary for the UK Government to set controls and limits on the borrowing powers in order to retain overall control of UK borrowing, protect overall economic stability and minimise fiscal risks to the UK Exchequer. This Government believe that the specific terms and conditions set out in the Bill and the Command Paper strike the right balance between protecting overall levels of UK debt and increasing the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament.

On the second point, I wish to thank hon. Members for bringing an important discrepancy to the attention of the Committee. Although the Command Paper was clear that revenue borrowing would be used to meet current expenditure because of a shortfall in receipts compared with forecast in devolved taxes and the Scottish rate of income tax, the Bill was not so clear. The Government will therefore introduce their own minor and technical amendment on Report to include the Scottish rate of income tax alongside devolved taxes. In conclusion, given the continued control by the Government over the UK fiscal mandate and the fact the Government will be introducing their own amendment in respect of the second issue, I ask the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) to withdraw the amendment.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Exchequer Secretary has said that the Government will be bringing the Scottish rate of income tax into the consideration, and I presume that that is still to allow borrowing when the actual figure there is less than the forecast. But that does not address the fundamental issue that if there is a forecast fall, the Scottish Parliament will take the entire hit, because there is still no cyclical borrowing—borrowing where a forecast fall actually happens.

[Mr Gauke]

The point of the amendments that will be introduced on Report is to do exactly as I have described. May I make a point about the cyclical impact and the adequacy of current borrowing? In the past downturn, income tax receipts fell by about 6% or 7%, so we are looking at a variation of 6% or 7% of the £4.5 billion estimated Scottish income tax receipts. That is about 1% of the Scottish budget, because it needs to be seen against the continuing bedrock of stability afforded by the block grant. I make that point so that we can place this issue in context.

Amendments 53 and 66 would have the effect of removing the borrowing limits. They do not replace the limit with an alternative figure, as has been made clear following a number of interventions from hon. Members, so I have assumed that the intention is for these limits to be determined by a new “code of practice”, as set out by the hon. Member for Dundee East and put forward in amendments 52 and 55. There are important reasons why the Bill contains limits, which I have already set out and which include the fact that Scottish borrowing would have an impact on the UK borrowing figures. It is surely right that the limit should be determined by the House, first through its consideration of the Bill and subsequently through approval of any order altering the limit. UK Government analysis continues to suggest that the limits in the Bill for revenue borrowing, together with the Scottish budget absorbing the first 0.5% of the deviation between forecast and outturn receipts, are sufficient in normal conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I note the hon. Lady’s comments. We are looking carefully at the recommendations by the Committee in the Scottish Parliament. We note her representations, and we will respond in due course. I wish to underline the fact that it is of absolute importance that we manage to maintain credibility, which is perhaps why there is less flexibility now than there may be in future. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) suggested that there might be greater flexibility in future, but we would need to assess that nearer the time. However, I note the hon. Lady’s remarks on the transitional period for borrowing.

Amendment 57 is consequential on amendment 56. As hon. Members wish to remove the borrowing limits from the Bill and the ability to revise those limits with the approval of the House, clause 32 (10) would no longer by necessary as there would be no such secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) raised the issue of end-of-year funds across all the devolved Administrations and Departments amounting to some £20 billion. Such large sums of accrued EYF present a fiscal risk to the UK Government, which is why new arrangements will be detailed in the forthcoming Budget. I hope that that clarification is helpful.

I thank the hon. Members for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the important borrowing powers provided by the Bill. This has been a helpful and perhaps probing debate—we shall see. However, we do not accept any of the amendments, so I invite the hon. Member for Dundee East to withdraw amendment 51. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that hon. Members agree that that clause 32 should stand part of the Bill.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister has said a great deal, and it was very instructive indeed. The Scottish Government will still be required to absorb the 0.5% cut in the budget before revenue borrowing can take place. On current forecasts, there would perhaps be £127 million in extra cuts even before we could borrow. There has been no confirmation that cyclical borrowing is permitted—it will still only be against changes to the forecast, which means that if there is a forecast fall we take the full hit. That cannot be right if the Office for Budget Responsibility is accurate and there is increased volatility in the Scottish budget. Repayments on the revenue will still be made over four years, which might well mean that if we borrowed at the height of the recession we would now be paying back, because it is such a short-term repayment schedule, even though there is already additional pressure on the Scottish budget.

The Minister said that capital borrowing of £2.2 billion on a 10% annual CDEL was exceptional, but the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament Committee did not think so. He is flatly ignoring the recommendations that have been made. He was anxious that the requirement for the Treasury to approve borrowing should be removed. I ask, what price the respect agenda? Incredibly, he offered no support for bonds, even though it was an explicit Committee recommendation that the

“Scottish Parliament should have the power to borrow directly from the markets by issuing bonds.”

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) sensibly asked what the Tory members of the Scottish Parliament Committee would make of that. One might ask what the Liberal members of the Scottish Parliament Committee make of that. I might ask what all the Unionist members of that Committee would make of that, given that they thought they had a deal and that the recommendations would see the light of day in one form or another in amendments in Committee, on Report or in another place. We will be watching extremely carefully to see whether the Government backtrack now on what appeared to be promises, abandoning all the recommendations of the Scottish Committee, which would be a shameful thing to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but given how little comfort we have had, I intend to divide the Committee on amendment 52.

Amendment 51, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 52, page 24, line 22, at end insert—

‘(1ZA) In borrowing sums under subsection (1), the Scottish Ministers must have regard to any code of practice agreed by them and the Treasury.

(1ZB) A code of practice agreed under subsection (1ZA) may include provision as to—

(a) how the Scottish Ministers are to determine and keep under review how much they can afford to borrow,

(b) the terms and conditions on which sums may be borrowed,

(c) limits on the aggregate at any time outstanding in respect of the principal of sums borrowed.’.—(Stewart Hosie.)

Question put, That the amendment be made:

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but the fact is that we have limited resources and have inherited a legacy in which the private sector is relatively strong in some areas, such as his constituency and mine, but much weaker in others. At a time when we cannot rely on massive public spending, and when the public sector will have to find economies, it is perfectly reasonable that we have adopted the approach of focusing on areas where there is high dependence on the public sector.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I am very supportive of the proposal in general terms, but when the Government came to their decision on it, did they consider extending it to existing businesses with very small work forces of one or two people as opposed to simply new starts, and did they consider what the cost of that might have been?

[Mr Gauke]

The focus of the policy has always been on start-up businesses. It is an attempt to encourage new businesses to be set up, given where we are in the economic cycle and the need to encourage private sector growth. That is why the Conservative party’s policy before the general election was focused on start-ups. After the election we considered how best to introduce the policy, and came to the view that we should include the regions where the private sector was at its weakest.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

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

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister is being generous. He is paraphrasing the Green Book, which says that the Government will

“prioritise spending which supports private sector growth and investment”.

Various forms of those words have been used since his party and the Liberal Democrats took office. Surely tax breaks that would cost perhaps £195 million and would deliver £415 million in tax receipts are precisely the sort of investment in precisely the sort of industry that would meet the Government’s objectives.

[Mr Gauke]

We have heard the figures quoted by TIGA, but we do not accept the validity of that analysis because we feel that some of the assumptions underpinning those estimates are erroneous. The research commissioned by the industry implicitly assumes that the investment incentivised by the subsidy is entirely additional to the UK economy. In reality, it is likely that the relief will displace investment from elsewhere in the economy, so the net impact on total UK investment could be limited. For example, it is possible that such a tax subsidy would divert investment from more productive sectors to the detriment of the productivity of the UK economy as a whole.

If Opposition Members are making the case that lower taxes always result in growth in the economy, I would listen with great interest and it would—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made this point—be an interesting conversion to supply-side economics. I do believe, however, that the strongest economic case can be made for lower tax rates as a whole, across a broader base, as opposed to targeting some sectors, unless there is a strong case that there is some kind of market failure. We have not yet heard such a case being expressed in a way that we find persuasive, and that is why we decided not to proceed with video games tax relief.

That is not to say that we do not wish to support British businesses—far from it; we do. It is vital that we have a strong private sector to drive the recovery, but we must support that growth in the right way. In the emergency Budget, the Government announced a major package of reforms to the business tax regime with the aim of creating the most competitive corporate tax system in the G20.

[Mr Gauke]

The TIGA analysis makes the assumption that everything achieved as a consequence of the relief would be additional to the economy. It does not appear to recognise that there would also be displacement, and that highly skilled graduates would not remain unemployed if they did not find work in the video games industry. We are therefore sceptical about the TIGA analysis. My hon. Friend makes his point well, however, and the nature and profile of the video games business clearly have some significance for his constituency, but we are as yet unconvinced of the necessity for the tax relief that was proposed by the previous Government, and that is proposed in the new clause.

The Government’s focus must be on providing a strong business environment for sectors across the board, including video games. Our reforms will reduce rates of corporation tax by four percentage points over the next four years, which means that the UK will continue to have the lowest main rate in the G7. This will improve our relative position significantly, compared with that of our competitors, after the years in which we have fallen behind. This will benefit companies across the economy, including those in the video games industry.

[Stewart Hosie]

My party welcomes the reduction in corporation tax; we believe that it is a good thing. However, some of the businesses that are creating video games are not big enough to pay corporation tax. Many of them are dependent on the annual allowances, but some of those have now gone, and one has been halved. So although I welcome the reduced corporation tax, the overall package will not necessarily help the start-up studios and small studios as they develop their games.

[Mr Gauke]

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

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

PAYE Contributions

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement to the House about the action that HMRC is taking to rectify overpayments and underpayments in the PAYE system.

The PAYE reconciliation process occurs every year to reflect the changes in people’s earnings and employment status that happen over the course of a tax year. In previous years, HMRC employed a system of manually joining up separate pieces of information through PAYE. Each case of potential overpayment or underpayment had to be reviewed individually before reconciliation could be finalised. That was inefficient and clerically intensive work, and it resulted in a backlog of open cases. HMRC now employs a new computer system that matches records automatically to ensure that the correct amount of tax is paid.

The coalition Government have already started to look at how to reform PAYE further and make it more efficient. As part of the Government’s strategy to create the most competitive tax system in the G20, we are consulting on options to improve PAYE. The PAYE system was introduced at a time when people had one job—perhaps the same job for their whole career—and one source of income in retirement. However, that world has now gone and it is common for people to have earnings from multiple sources. That is well known, but it is something that the previous Government failed to address.

No reconciliation process was undertaken last year, so this year HMRC had to complete the reconciliation for two years instead of one. The preliminary assessment of this year’s reconciliation was first brought to my attention earlier in the summer, and while the majority of PAYE records are correct, we are acting promptly to put right the situation that we inherited, which has contributed to the number of individuals required to make payments and the size of payments owed. About 4.3 million taxpayers will receive repayments between now and Christmas, while 1.4 million will be sent letters specifying how any underpayment has been calculated and how such payments can be reviewed.

To begin the process of reconciliation, HMRC has sent out the first set of taxpayer notifications to individuals throughout the UK. Those individuals who have overpaid will receive a full refund. Those who have underpaid will make additional payments through the PAYE system, provided that the payment due is less than £2,000. If the payment due is more than £2,000, HMRC will contact the individual to discuss the issue. All payments will begin next year and no immediate one-off payment will be required. HMRC will review the responses to the first set of notifications and make any changes needed to operational plans before going ahead with the rest. Staggering the process between now and Christmas will help to ensure that HMRC can deal with all queries efficiently.

The Exchequer is owed a total of approximately £2 billion. The fact that we were left with the worst deficit in peacetime history means that we simply cannot afford to write off all the underpayments. To ensure that the tax system is fair for everyone and that everyone pays their fair share, we are taking action to recoup the funds as painlessly as possible. In cases of genuine hardship, HMRC will allow payments to be spread across a period of three years. As was already the case, it will not pursue cases when the amount owed is less than £300—that is an increase from the previous threshold of £50—which applies to 40% of all underpayments. Of course, in specific circumstances, HMRC will consider writing off underpayments where it can be shown that HMRC was provided with all the information necessary—although I have to tell the House, from historical experience, that that is unlikely to apply to many cases. We do not want to build up people’s hopes unrealistically.

This Government understand that there is an urgent need to reform our PAYE system. In opposition and from day one in government, we have sought ways to improve it. The system is outdated, inefficient and burdensome to the Exchequer and taxpayer alike. We need PAYE to reflect the employment issues that the 21st century presents, and that will be a focus of reforms that we take forward as part of our wider strategy for reform.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the Minister for his technical explanation of the problem. I say at the outset that, given the scale of the problem—6 million people owing or owed perhaps £6 billion—it is disappointing that a Minister was brought here to make that statement and that the Government did not volunteer one earlier.

May I ask for more clarity? Is the number of people affected around the 6 million previously reported, and does the Minister discount the figure of 23 million reported in some of the press today? Is he confident that the previously reported figure for mispayments of £3.8 billion are correct, and does he give any credence to reports in the press today of an additional £3 billion of mispayment error? In short, I am trying to understand the full extent of the problem.

Can the Minister tell the House when those due to receive payments from the Revenue will get them? He confirmed the procedure for the Revenue requesting payment from those who have underpaid, and I am pleased that the offset is now £300, but can he give a cast-iron guarantee that those whose circumstances have changed dramatically—perhaps they have lost their job—will not be hounded for modest payments that they can no longer afford to make?

What action is the Minister taking to ensure that taxpayers are not now the target of fraudsters and scams? To get to the bottom of the matter, although he explained how the problem occurred, can he explain how long such errors have been occurring and when Ministers first knew about them? How could a system so flawed have been allowed to operate as it did? He spoke a lot about PAYE and his intention to reform it, but the public, employers and employees have a right to trust and believe that the PAYE system is reliable and works. What guarantees can he give us today that, after work is done on PAYE, it will be trusted and people’s family and household incomes and budgets will not be shredded, as they may be in the coming year, with demands for back tax because of miscalculations by the Revenue?

[Mr Gauke]

First, let I say that I am perfectly happy to answer these questions and I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the backlog of cases. That matter has been well known—I believe that he and I have debated it in the past, and a National Audit Office report published on 30 June gave the most recent update on the position. There is nothing new in the backlog that has emerged in recent weeks. There is a problem and we and HMRC are seeking to deal with it, but it is a problem that has existed for many years and we are critical of the previous Administration for the lack of progress in resolving it. A specific concern that has featured very recently is that it has emerged that, in the last two tax years, 4.3 million people have overpaid tax and 1.4 million have underpaid. Our aim is to send cheques to all those who have overpaid over the course of the rest of the year—in dramatic contrast with previous delays in addressing overpayments.

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of changed circumstances, and it is absolutely right that HMRC considers hardship cases. That is why we have announced today that HMRC will show flexibility in some cases to spread payment over three years. As I said, we are not seeking to pursue the matter mindlessly, without taking account of individual circumstances, especially of those owing large amounts.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly raises the subject of fraudsters, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to reiterate that HMRC will not send e-mails to members of the public; communication will be in writing. Of course, people should be cautious.

How long has this problem persisted? The fundamental problem with PAYE, in the sense of there being too many open cases, and underpayments and overpayments, is a long-standing issue. In part it has to be recognised that, inherently in the PAYE system, there will sometimes be underpayments, because not all the information will be available in-year. For example, all the information about benefits in kind, company cars and so on, will not necessarily be available to HMRC or to employers. That will come to light at the end of the year, and then there will be a need for reconciliation, but that problem has always existed.

The hon. Gentleman specifically asked how long Ministers have been aware of the problem. This Minister has been aware of a problem with PAYE since day one, and that is one reason why we made proposals for reform when in opposition.

The hon. Gentleman asked also about future reform. It is important that there is trust in the PAYE system, and it is right to say that in 85% of cases PAYE is correct in-year, but there are still problems, and we are consulting on proposals so that information is more up-to-date—if you like, so that it is real-time information. That means that HMRC will be able to respond to changed conditions much more quickly, and that we will have a system that is fit for the 21st century, in which people move around, change jobs and have multiple sources of income. We think that that is the direction in which we need to move.

Finance Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The further forward the projections go, the less reliable the information and evidence on existing measures, not to mention the fact that, of course, there will be a number of Budgets between now and then and further policy announcements will be made during that period. Therefore, those projections are unlikely to be particularly accurate or helpful to the House.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Minister has been telling us about a number of measures that will mitigate the VAT rise, such as changes to the tax system and tax credits, but none of those things is in the Bill. He has not mentioned some of the other cuts not yet announced but promised that are not in the Budget either, not least the huge savings intended to be made in the welfare system. Would he care to give a more rounded picture and tell us what the impact on those who are at the very bottom and wholly dependent on benefits will be when those cuts kick in?

[Mr Gauke]

This Government have provided greater distributional analysis than any Government have done before. Clearly, in very difficult times, when it is necessary to raise substantial sums and to reduce the deficit very dramatically, we have managed to do so in a way that has spread the pain. It is not the Government’s desire from any great sense of pleasure to be taking tough measures, but that is unavoidable—we cannot ignore it or hide from it—and, yes, there will be pain, but there is no alternative.

Our long-term objective remains to increase the personal allowance to £10,000, as set out in the coalition agreement, and we have made progress in the Bill and the Budget. We are increasing the personal allowance on income tax and taking almost 1 million people—the lowest earning income tax payers—out of income tax altogether. That will also benefit 23 million people who work in Britain by up to £170 a year.

The second matter that the Bill stands for is freedom—freedom for the private sector to grow, unconstrained by uncompetitive tax rates. The Bill will take the first step towards that by cutting the corporation tax rate to 27%, and it will be cut every year until it reaches 24%—the lowest rate of any major western economy, one of the lowest rates in the G7 and the lowest rate that this country has ever known.

Hon. Members were concerned that cutting the main rate would mean that banks did not pay their fair share. Many sectors, including manufacturing, will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax, but we have made it clear that the reforms outlined in the Budget will ensure a greater contribution from the banking sector—one that far outweighs any benefit that they receive from lower corporation tax rates. The banking levy announced in the Budget is a surgical approach reflective of economic risk and intended to encourage banks to move to less risky funding profiles. Banks will pay at least £2 billion more in tax as a consequence of those proposals.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who has contributed a great deal to the debates on the Bill, was particularly concerned that the banks will be let off for risky behaviour. That is not the case, but I hope he will accept that a targeted approach is the best way forward. Tax competitiveness is good for employers and society as a whole, and the bank levy allows us to be competitive, while ensuring appropriate tax treatment for those activities that pose the greatest risk.

Office of Tax Simplification

Debate between David Gauke and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The greater the complexity, the greater the opportunities for avoiding tax, and a simpler tax system closes down some of those opportunities. The relationship between avoidance and complexity is itself complex, because avoidance leads to more complexity. As a Government, we take tackling tax avoidance very seriously.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The old tax law rewrite project only managed, in more than a decade, to bring about the Capital Allowances Act 2001, four income tax measures, the Corporation Tax Act 2009, the Corporation Tax Act 2010 and the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010. As the Minister expects a report on each of this new body’s inquiries, with an analysis of its reform options and recommendations, all of which might take some time, may I ask him, if he does nothing else, to urge the new Office of Tax Simplification to work rather more swiftly than the old tax law rewrite project was able to?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman rightly makes the point that tax law is a complicated matter, and such matters are not addressed easily and simply, but we believe that we have appointed the right individuals, and that there is engagement by the tax professions. We believe that the tax law rewrite project had many commendable features, but it was very restricted. It focused merely on wording, and we want an independent body to consider policy recommendations to see how we can improve our tax system.