Finance (No. 3) Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
There are serious issues about the balance of power between management and ownership. Many shareholders are also very exercised about excessive remuneration, compensation pay or call it what we will, and I believe that the balance of power needs addressing in the longer term. It is interesting to note how banks have tried to shift their remuneration approaches according to the political and tax arrangements of the day. While the Minister will no doubt tell us that bonus payouts for the City in 2010-11 were predicted to come down by 8% in comparison with 2009-10, what he will not tell us is that that apparent fall in bonuses was largely offset by a 7% increase in salaries for senior banking executives. The roundabout continues, but some people never lose out when it comes to this particular game.
Analysis of official earning figures by pay research specialists Income Data Services showed that large payouts in the financial sector during February and March this year helped to maintain payments during the 2011 bonus season at a similarly high level to that recorded in 2010. Not enough has changed; Ministers are not exercised or angry enough about this particular scandal, and action is necessary.
The fact is that banks are now more likely to pay discretionary bonuses, which would be captured by our proposed bonus tax, instead of paying the guaranteed bonuses that they used to get away with—the multi-year contractual bonuses that looked to the rest of us like salaries but that they called bonuses, which would not be caught. If the guaranteed bonuses become the exception and not the rule, as the Chancellor says, it might provide us with an opportunity to capture more of the discretionary bonuses through our bank bonus tax. As I said, we estimate the yield to be £2 billion.
We have to resolve the sense of anger felt by UK taxpayers towards the banking institutions that they had to bail out. The public are still rightly angry about the greed and irresponsibility of some of the senior executives at our largest banks and about the size of the bonuses. There is simmering anger out there still about the bonuses that continue to be paid when austerity is biting very hard for many of our constituents. Real and visible action is needed on bonuses, not secret voluntary arrangements behind closed doors between the big banks—as with Project Merlin, which the Chancellor pursued before. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) described it, it was little more than a damp squib.
The banks provide an important utility in our society. They are a key part of our economy, and a strong banking sector is in all our interests. However, by talking tough and acting weak the Government are fuelling public anger while doing little to address the issues. They should stop treating people like fools, and do far more to ensure that the banks and senor banking executives are paying back their fair share—a fair share that could generate money to repair some of the damage to jobs and the economy, and help tens of thousands of young people to secure a decent start in employment.
We are not asking very much. We just want a review of whether the bank levy could be augmented with a repeat of the bonus tax. We want the taxpayer to be given a fair deal in return for rescuing the banks, and we want the Government to take seriously the threat of a lost generation of young people struggling to find work. A fair tax on banker bonuses to help people off the dole and into work is the best way to get the deficit down and stop Britain’s talent going to waste.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Amendment 31, which stands in my name, proposes a report reviewing the possibility of incorporating a financial transaction tax within the Government’s proposed bank levy, which would also examine ways in which any funds raised through such a tax could be invested in tackling not just unemployment and poverty in this country, but deprivation in the developing world. Many will remember the financial transaction tax in its former life as the Tobin tax; last year it was relaunched as the Robin Hood tax, focusing largely on the campaign to tackle poverty in the developing world.
I can think of no better day on which to debate this issue, having seen the pictures shown on our television screens last night and today of the tragedy that is taking place in the horn of Africa. This morning, Radio 4 broadcast the story of a family—parents with one child—who had walked for miles to the aid station, only to find that the one-year-old child had died as a result of suffering the drought and famine. I also commend last night’s “Dispatches” programme, presented by Jon Snow, which identified the activities of Rachmanite landlords in west London. Some of those landlords operate in my constituency, and the matter has been raised in the Chamber in the past. It demonstrates the poverty that still exists in this country.
On a personal note, let me say that this morning I received letters from children at Cherry Lane primary school in my constituency as part of their campaign to encourage politicians to think about how we can fund education in the developing world so that children there can go to school. That is what my proposal is all about.
When the transaction tax was relaunched last year as the Robin Hood tax, it was supported by a wide range of churches and religious organisations. I will not name them all, but let me give Members a flavour of them. They included the Trades Union Congress, Crisis, Action Aid, Article 12 in Scotland, Barnardo’s, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, Church Action on Poverty, Comic Relief, the Church of Scotland’s Church and Society Council, the Christian Socialist Movement, the Disability Alliance, the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility, EveryChild, Family Action, Faith2Share, Friends of the Earth, the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, Greenpeace, Oxfam, Quaker Peace and Social Witness, Save the Children, Tearfund and the Salvation Army.
That was the largest alliance of civil society organisations that we have seen in generations campaigning on a single issue, and, as you know, Mr Speaker, they came here last month. Twelve hundred people came to Parliament, and met us in Central Hall over a cup of tea. The event was organised in particular by Oxfam, Action Aid, Save the Children, Tearfund, CAFOD and Christian Aid, and their message was simple: 1 billion people have no access to clean water and 2.5 billion lack basic sanitation, and it is time for change and action.
Those organisations pointed out that—as we have seen in the horn of Africa—the situation is dramatically worsening as a result of drought and famine. They raised three issues with us: the need to ensure that all Governments commit themselves to devoting 0.7% of gross national income to aid, the need to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, and—this was their key demand—the need for a Robin Hood transaction tax on banks. The amendment does not ask the Government to make an instant decision; it simply asks them to help us move the debate on. It is an attempt at a bipartisan—or whatever the correct term is as so many parties are represented in the Chamber—or consensual approach to enable us to move forward. I am not asking for its immediate adoption, although I would like that; rather, it specifically asks for a report to be prepared so that we can be convinced about the way forward both in principle and in respect of the practical arrangements, to ensure that whatever Government introduce this tax, it proves to be successful. It simply asks the Government to review and report.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is setting out his case very well. In recent years, there has been an ever-speedier move towards the globalisation of our economies, and he is absolutely right that this assessment and review is needed in respect of our obligations to global society. My hon. Friend has set out that case perfectly. Does he agree that it is crucial that we do not overlook some of the global challenges in tackling poverty and climate change?
John McDonnell
Yes, and when the various groups lobbied us last month it was interesting to note how the debate had progressed since the original discussions about the Tobin tax. The debate had become much more refined and concretely related to the global needs that my hon. Friend mentioned. There has been a debate about how we allocate these resources and what the greatest priorities are, and so far it has been about poverty in this country so that we do not in any way undermine support for such taxation among people in the UK, but we must balance that with support for efforts in the developing world. The climate change issue has also come on to the agenda since the Tobin tax was first proposed.
One question that arose in the discussions in Central Hall was what the effect would be if we did raise, for example, £20 billion in this country. It was said that if we spent £4 billion, we could halve child poverty in this country overnight, and if we spent £5 billion, we could insulate every home and therefore take people out of fuel poverty. Such examples bring home the reality of what could be done through such a tax.
It is not a tax on normal retail banking or on savings or mortgages. It does not hit the ordinary saver. It is a micro-tax, and in some ways a tax on short-term speculation banking. It does not fall on UK banks alone either, as foreign banks operate in the City. I would take particular delight in taxing Goldman Sachs in this way—that is a personal grudge—but there are also other hedge funds operating in the City of London. A strong argument, which we have heard today, has been made for seeking international agreement. Negotiations are taking place and there is consensus, even within the European Parliament, on introducing a European-wide financial transaction tax. My concern about that is that the European discussions were about using that tax to fund the European Commission—I might have more than reservations about that proposal.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
The idea of a Robin Hood tax is noble, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that without international agreement across all countries, it is very unlikely to get off the ground?
John McDonnell
No. If that was the case, we would not have introduced a stamp tax on transactions. It brings in £5 billion and has been an incredibly successful tax. The concern has been expressed that this country would be disadvantaged if it acted unilaterally, but the International Monetary Fund’s study does not say that. It cites the stamp duty as an example of a transaction tax that has not affected UK business and states that financial transaction taxes
“do not automatically drive out financial activity to an unacceptable extent”.
Banks do not leave, because they know that they are secure in this country—in fact, they know that if they get into trouble we bail them out.
The argument that London’s advantages would evaporate overnight as a result of this sort of tax are just not accurate. The reason this country has these advantages, apart from the experience in dealing with financial transactions that we have built up over generations and centuries, is that it is time zone-critical—it is located between the Asian and New York markets—so it is ideally placed to ensure that financial operations are carried out in London. If companies were to move elsewhere in Europe, where would they go? Germany, our main competitor in the European time zone, is already committed, under Chancellor Merkel, to implementing a financial transaction tax.
The argument that is made now about needing some form of global international agreement is exactly the same one that was used to say that we should not introduce any form of taxation on bank bonuses. When we introduced the one-off tax on bonuses in 2010 we were told of fears that there would be a mass exodus of bankers leaving the country. In fact, the recruitment of bankers has increased—perhaps that is a debate for another day.
Alison McGovern
On the argument that my hon. Friend has just made about whether or not people would leave as a result of such a tax, does he agree that we should support what J. K. Rowling said in 2010 about people who might leave this country because of taxation? She said:
“I cannot help feeling…that it would have been contemptible to scarper…at the first sniff of a seven-figure…cheque.”
Ought we not to support her on this?
John McDonnell
There is a spell, is there not—[Interruption.] The new sequel film is coming out soon, so we will see what spell there is to retain bankers in this country, if we need them.
I do not take this issue about international agreement lightly. That is why I am calling for a report, as any report would examine that issue. We are going back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made earlier, because this country is best placed to take the lead in trying to secure some of these agreements and such a report could address how we could do that. However, it certainly should not hold us back from taking unilateral action.
The other matter that has been raised in this debate previously is the concern about avoidance, but we can design out any avoidance measures. We can design this tax to make it difficult to avoid, just as we did with stamp duty.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend rightly talks about taking the lead. Are we not hearing exactly the same arguments as the ones used against my private Member’s Bill to tackle vulture funds in the previous Parliament? Thankfully, the Bill was pushed through by the previous Government using the wash-up procedure and it has been made permanent by this Government. Were not exactly the same arguments employed during the debate on that Bill? Is it not sometimes right that we do take the lead?
John McDonnell
Yes, I had forgotten that example. It is a good example of how unilateral action can raise the standard overall across Europe and globally.
Another issue raised in our debate on the Tobin tax a number of years ago concerned whether it would be practical. Things have moved on since then and the system for undertaking financial transactions is highly automated and centralised. New systems have been put in place, and I refer Members to the study by the Institute of Development Studies that identified how the system now operates:
“The Continuous Linked Settlement Bank, launched in 2002, now settles more than half of all foreign exchange transactions, with the remainder processed through national real-time gross settlements systems.”
Now we have the systems in place, through advances in new technology, to monitor the process and thereby ensure that tax is collected easily and that avoidance can be prevented.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend just mentioned avoidance and the problems that it causes. Does he agree that if avoidance was the reason for not doing what he proposes, the Government would give up on collecting any taxes? Avoidance of tax is a far greater problem than any to do with claiming benefits, yet the Government focus their energy on benefits and not on tax.
John McDonnell
The main argument on the Tobin tax involved the inability mechanically to identify the transactions and therefore levy the tax. I think that that has been overcome with the new systems.
The avoidance issues will concern migration to tax havens and elsewhere and the report on this tax would have to address them, but we must also attack them more generally. That is why I was so disappointed that my amendment on that subject was not called for debate. That is another issue, however, that I shall raise at another time.
Financial transaction taxes have been introduced elsewhere in the world. In fact, they have been identified in about 40 countries—including ours, with stamp duty. Another question that was raised concerned whether, if we introduced this tax, it would be passed on to the customers. That is a concern, but the report we receive from the Government can consider how to design the tax so that it is targeted at the casino banking that has resulted in this crisis and so that we can protect ordinary people and businesses.
The key point about this tax is that, as the IMF study said, it is “highly progressive”. It falls on the richest institutions and individuals in a very similar manner to capital gains tax. As for the competition element and whether the cost will be passed on to customers, thereby hitting individuals harder, the finance sector is competitive and institutions that try to pass on the cost of the tax to customers will find themselves attacked through a shortage of business.
Another argument that has been made more recently is that this tax could help to assist in addressing high-frequency trading, where transactions happen every few seconds. There has been a huge increase in the number of transactions to do with derivatives. The volume of such financial transactions is now 70 times the size of the world economy and commentators have argued that that is dangerously large and destabilising. Lord Turner, the chair of the Financial Services Authority, said that many such speculative transactions are socially useless. Many of them are based on extremely small profit margins, so even a low rate financial transaction tax of 0.05% would reduce the size of the market by reducing the profitability of these risky transactions. In that way, it would contribute to stabilising the economy overall.
I do not want to delay the House. Many Members have considered the issue in some depth as a result of the lobbying, but for all the reasons I have given I agree with the 1,000 economists who wrote to the G20 summit. This is an idea whose time has come. Issues still need to be addressed, which were set out by Neil McCulloch in the IDS study, but the principal issue is political will. I hope that we can display political will across the parties and across the House to move on this matter.
I finish by quoting from the letter from the 1,000 economists to the G20:
“The financial crisis has shown us the dangers of unregulated finance, and the link between the financial sector and society has been broken. It is time to fix this link and for the financial sector to give something back to society.”
The letter says that a Robin Hood tax is not only “technically feasible”, but “morally right.” That is why I invite the House to support my amendment.
Stephen Williams
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and I am sure that the Minister will tell us what work has been done in the Treasury and his estimate of what the proposal from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington might raise.
My point is that it is not helpful to present MPs or our constituents with such a range of sums—from the low billions to in excess of £100 billion—that the Robin Hood tax could raise, because they raise false expectations of what it might actually achieve.
John McDonnell
I was encouraged by the hon. Gentleman’s earlier statements, but I was waiting for the “but” and it has come. Amendment 31 simply asks for a report to be prepared exploring all the issues that he has quite rightly and properly set out, so I see no reason why he cannot support it in order, as I said earlier, to move the debate on.
Stephen Williams
I have not said, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think, that I do not support what he is trying to achieve. We will have to hear from the Minister what work the Treasury is doing, or may have already done, to produce the facts and figures that we all want.
My final point on the amount that a Robin Hood tax could raise is about what it should be spent on. I have heard about a range of problems at home and abroad that could be solved by such a tax, but I entirely agree with the way in which the hon. Gentleman has refined those objectives down to dealing with poverty at home and abroad. I think we can agree at least on that.
Mr Hoban
Significant studies have been done by both the EU and the IMF on such a tax, how it would work and the pitfalls in the proposals. We will see an impact assessment on that emerging shortly. We have not ruled out a financial activities tax. We are engaged in discussion with our international partners and we have pressed for the Commission to consider such a tax. It is working on that. We are making progress. Another review is not needed; there is sufficient work going on to explore the issue in significant detail. The amendment would impose more burdens on the Treasury and it would be better to allow that work to take its course.
Mr Hoban
I would like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to try to wind up the debate because there are other important matters to be discussed this evening.
On Government amendments 32 to 50, since our proceedings in Committee, it has been brought to our attention that in one area the Bill as drafted may not fully achieve the intended policy ambition. These are the rules relating to netting and in particular the rules concerning multi-lateral netting agreements in groups. These are essentially agreements that allow different members of the same banking group to enter into a net settlement agreement with the same counterparties.
We have sought as a public policy objective to ensure that banks should be able to net off certain liabilities against assets, and that the levy is charged only on the remaining balance of liabilities. The amendments clarify the purpose of the Bill and ensure that the netting rules apply so that some banks are not adversely affected. We want to make sure that we keep the provisions under review. That is why we have put into the amendments a power to allow the Treasury to amend the rules applying to netting arrangements.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East asked whether there would be an impact on yield as a consequence of the amendments. There is no impact on yield, as the amendments reflect the policy objective that we have pursued.
In conclusion, we think it is right that banks should make a contribution reflecting the risks they pose to the UK financial system and the wider economy. That is why we introduced the bank levy. We expect the levy to raise more each and every year than the bank payroll tax did under the previous Government. All the Opposition have to offer in the debate is a tax that did not work the first time round. We have put in place a clear strategy to reform the banking sector. I believe that the actions we are taking are right, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Opposition amendments.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on moving his new clause and on the deployment of his expertise for the benefit of the whole House. He could well be a candidate for tax personality of next year, but I would advise him that it might help his prospects if he were to lay off the Reagan quotes.
I wish to speak to the amendments tabled in my name. Amendment 15 deals with directors’ salaries and payments, and proposes a binding vote by shareholders on such payments. Amendment 16 deals with the publication of information on the salaries and bonuses of directors in all public limited companies. Amendment 17 deals with a number of issues relating to enterprise investment schemes, and it would be helpful to receive certain information from the Government in order to assess those schemes in future.
I want to deal with salaries and bonuses first, as they have been a matter of contention in the House for a number of years now. Statements have been made by leading members of all political parties expressing concern, if not outrage, at the levels of increase in the pay of company directors. The Leader of the Opposition said in a recent speech that the
“danger today is that pay and performance have become detached…Over the last 12 years, chief executive pay in Britain’s top companies has quadrupled, while share prices have remained flat.”
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has called for greater disclosure on pay and bonuses and their link to company performance. He was reported as hitting out at the
“ethics of the wild east”
in the City. He described some directors’ pay and bonus settlements as “ridiculous”, “outrageous” and “rewards for failures”. I agree wholeheartedly with the Leader of the Opposition and the Secretary of State on this matter. I believe that the Secretary of State’s sentiments have been echoed by the Prime Minister himself.
My amendments seek to address the fact that the present system for the control of directors’ pay and bonuses by shareholders is not working. The current system for judging and rewarding remuneration in major companies is clearly not linked to performance, and evidence for that now abounds. The Business Secretary was referring to the dramatic increase in the remuneration of directors and executives of the top 100 companies. In 1998, that remuneration was 45 times the pay of the average employee in the company. By 2010, it was 145 times the average pay, and if it continues at that rate, it is predicted to reach 214 times the average salary in the company that the director or chief executive controls.
At the moment, the chief executives of the FTSE 100 companies have total remuneration packages averaging £4.2 million a year. Last August, it was reported that the financial crisis had resulted in ordinary employees’ salaries being frozen in at least one third of Britain’s biggest companies, yet the average pay of the top directors increased by £500,000. Hewitt New Bridge Street has reported that the typical bonus has now increased from 90% to 120% of salary, and the total remuneration survey conducted by pay and reward consultants MM&K showed evidence of a total disconnect between rewards, actual performance and shareholder value. Performance-related pay has just gone through the roof, however, with extremely complex packages being devised. The average top award under share allocation schemes and incentive schemes in the FTSE 100 has risen from 174% to 328% of salary.
In some instances, outrageously large awards have been agreed even before the director has demonstrated any value to the company. An example is Lloyds, which gave its new chief exec, António Horta-Osório, a welcome package worth close to £13.4 million simply for joining the bank. This is a bank that we, as taxpayers, now own. Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, said that taxpayers would be “appalled” at paying someone
“£5,000 a day, just for turning up at the office for the next three years”.
I wholeheartedly agree with him on that. Ironically, Sir Victor Blank, the former chair of the Lloyds group, described top bankers’ pay in The Sunday Telegraph—not a newspaper I regularly read—as “unconscionable” and warned that the widening pay gap could lead to dangerous divisions in society and more strikes. I shall quote him directly. He said:
“You can’t have an ongoing widening gap between the top pay and the average pay…I think we are at a time now where you have a certain amount of unrest over pensions and other issues where if we don’t start early to have a degree of moderation in the levels of pay we risk more industrial unrest than we have had.”
I could not agree more.
Some shareholders have echoed those concerns. It was perhaps best expressed by a woman shareholder who was disgruntled at the Cable and Wireless annual general meeting. She complained—and it was a heartfelt plea from the floor:
“All the money and all the profit seem to be going towards the salaries of the Board, and I did not necessarily think that they were worth that amount of money.”
I believe this is undermining confidence and engendering cynicism—and, of course, division and disenchantment—in the whole process.
Clearly, the billowing packages of directors’ pay, bonuses and overall remuneration has to be addressed. The Government have acknowledged that, as have all parties in the House. My amendments are designed to prompt action and to make action more speedy and decisive.
If we are to tackle this issue, we need to understand why it is occurring. The Joseph Rowntree charitable trust funded an independent inquiry, the High Pay Commission, to which I believe a number of Members have submitted their views over the last year. It has looked at the drivers behind the trend of increases in directors’ and executives’ pay and remuneration. It provides some understanding of how the system operates to determine directors’ remuneration and puts forward the reason for the excesses.
Governments have addressed the issue over the last two decades. Legislation has been there to establish the current system of corporate governance. For publicly listed companies, it is based first on the establishment of a remuneration committee on every board to advise on appropriate remuneration; secondly, on disclosure; and, thirdly, on the shareholder having a vote on the pay and remuneration of directors. All the companies with a premium listing of shares are required on the Financial Services Authority listing rules to report on how they have applied the UK corporate governance code in their annual reports and accounts. This includes explaining how the pay was arrived at and determined.
The remuneration committees that have developed since the 1990s grew up as a result of pressure from successive Governments. They aim to overcome the conflict of interest in directors setting their own salaries. The Greenbury report on corporate governance called for them to be fully independent and to comprise wholly non-executive directors. The committees agree the pay packages for top execs and produce the report that will eventually go before shareholders.
The problem identified by the High Pay Commission and others is that the non-execs that sit on the remuneration committees are often executive directors in other companies, so setting benchmarks of remuneration is important for them. There have been charges of cronyism as executives and directors appoint each other to each other’s remuneration committees—a relationship of incestuous self-interest—while the non-execs sit alongside executive directors supporting them and unwilling to challenge them on pay. In recent years, we have seen the emergence of remuneration consultants who advise the remuneration committees on the setting of pay, but these are unregulated and they are often working for or are commissioned by the company directors on whose salaries they are giving advice.
On disclosure, quoted companies must publish directors’ remuneration reports. These appear in the annual report and are put to shareholders for a vote. This information is required to be put to companies as an ordinary resolution for approval at the AGM. The problem, however, is the UK corporate governance code guidance, according to which:
“A significant proportion of executive directors’ remuneration should be structured so as to link the rewards to corporate and individual performance. There should be a formal and transparent procedure for developing policy on executive remuneration and for fixing remuneration packages of individual directors.”
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend’s amendments help with the sort of situation we faced with HBOS? It was driven into the buffers by its highly paid executive team, who seemed to lose nothing while the shareholders lost everything.
John McDonnell
My amendments would go some way to ensuring that the information is published, enabling the Government to look in more detail at such information, while also enabling shareholders to have at least some opportunity to hold the directors to account. As I said, the advisory vote system worked initially, but it certainly has not worked in recent years, as the HBOS example demonstrates. Having a binding vote will give the shareholders some authority. The amendments are an attempt to redress the current imbalance of power between the shareholder and the board. It will not solve all the problems of directors being unaccountable on pay or bonus awards, but it would put another weapon in shareholders’ hands to tackle the issue.
Amendment 17 relates to enterprise investment schemes and accountability. Just as shareholders need information to hold company boards to account, the House should ensure that taxpayer’s money and tax concessions are allocated wisely to groups in society and that value for money is achieved. The amendment would invite the Government to justify in more detail future enterprise investment schemes on the basis of past performance of previously approved schemes. The amendment would seek information from the Minister on the total cost of tax relief with regard to the tax income forgone, the number of jobs created by the companies that have gained tax relief under the schemes, and the number of companies that have failed after the tax relief has been given—calculating the cost of each job created compared with the cost of the tax relief given. The information provided in the paperwork in relation to the Budget and the Finance Bill is not clear. The Treasury briefing on enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts sets out the proposals but provides no analysis of past measures and their performance. The Treasury Committee, in its comments on tax relief for EIS under the Finance Bill , suggested:
“The measure also needs to be viewed alongside the other proposals for EIS and whether the existing EIS conditions encourage investment in growth businesses.”
The Treasury Committee, therefore, points us in the direction of undertaking a proper value for money exercise on the proposals.
The amendment would enable the Minister to respond to that. Before we venture into such schemes, particularly EIS, we must ensure that their objectives are achieved with value for money, and the information is not currently available for us to make that judgment.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I shall speak briefly to amendment 51. Since the Government announced the additional corporation tax on oil companies in the Budget, I have been urging and, I hope, taking a constructive part in getting the companies and the Government to talk through how field allowances can be used to ensure that projects reviewed as a result of the tax changes can still go ahead. The purpose of the amendment is to get feedback from the Government on the progress of such negotiations, which I hope will have a positive outcome. Immediately after the Budget, Statoil made the most controversial, and certainly the most high-profile, announcement: that it was putting on hold the Mariner and Bressay fields. I imagine that those fields involve up to £6 billion of investment, with 600,000 barrels of oil recoverable and the possibility of a headquarters building being located in Aberdeen. I hope that the Government will find a way to ensure that the project goes ahead.
Next week, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and I are taking a number of oil companies that are members of Oil & Gas UK to meet the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to discuss in detail the implications of the tax. The difficulty is that the tax changes impact differently on every field and on every company and its planned investments. I hope that active negotiations will lead to a recognition that allowances can be adjusted for particular types of field or circumstances, and that as a net result we will not lose too many of the investments that were originally at risk. I also hope that engagement over time will lead to both parties agreeing that a simplification of the tax system might be desirable. When prices are high, the industry might reasonably be expected to make a contribution; equally, we should recognise its need to know with some certainly the return that it is likely to get on significant investments.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a powerful and persuasive case regarding rewards for work not done or risk not taken, but it is easy to look at the oil companies as rich fat cats, which is how the public and the House often view them. However, developing oil from under the North sea involves huge risks in relation to technology, geology, exchange rates, markets and weather. Many people engaged in the industry use their technical knowledge and expertise to make a substantial return for their companies and for the UK economy, and although they have good, well-paid jobs, the payments and returns they receive are not in the same league as those received by people in financial services.
The Government have acknowledged that they do not want to lose the production from marginal and mature fields, and they are prepared to use field allowances. According to conversations I have had, negotiating in detail over a project for a field is incredibly complicated, requiring an enormous amount of civil service time, expertise and engagement, as well as executive management time, so I hope that the system will be simplified. Perhaps everybody is prepared to devote such time to significant projects, but the Department has a limited capacity to engage in too many of those negotiations, and companies sometimes have a limited capacity and willingness to engage, to the extent they might say that investigating or investing in other projects is more worth while.
I want to be encouraged by the knowledge that constructive engagement is taking place. I get good feedback from the industry about talks that it hopes and believes will lead to agreements that ensure that investments go ahead. In the long run, I hope that we will have a system in which there is trust and understanding and the Government get the revenue from high oil prices to which they are entitled, but the country gets the investment in the expertise, people and resources that will maximise production of oil and gas in the North sea, maximise jobs in the UK, and maximise and sustain the export industry, which is growing substantially. I hope that the Government will give a positive response in due course.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
As I listened to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) speak to amendment 15, I thought that my ears were deceiving me because I felt so much sympathy for what he was saying. Indeed, he put me in mind of a book by a reformed Trotskyite, James Burnham, who predicted in “The Managerial Revolution” the system of capitalism—the set of structures—that we now recognise in publicly listed companies. My discomfort evaporated, however, when I realised that the hon. Gentleman was defending the interests of the owners of capital.
Steve Baker
In that case, I am delighted that we are on opposite sides of the Chamber.
It is strange that capitalism has come to this: that, nowadays, the owners of capital need to be defended by the House from their own directors. If I have understood the amendment correctly, it would mean that the change in the main rate for 2011 would not come into force until legislation had provided arrangements for shareholders to approve their directors’ remuneration. It is almost incredible that such an arrangement does not already exist.
We must reunite ownership control and the risk taken with capital, and I believe that the amendment goes to the heart of one of the problems of our capitalist system. I am not sure that it would achieve the aim that the hon. Gentleman has set out because it might not affect the rate for 2011, and I therefore cannot support it. Nevertheless, I think it is an extremely good idea, and I urge the Government to consider it.
Mr Hanson
That is an interesting argument, and I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s detailed knowledge of these matters, which goes back to his professional experience before entering the House. My worry has been placed on the record on Second Reading, in Committee and on several other occasions. For the moment, it is best that we keep our arguments to the effectiveness of capital allowances, and I will, thus, still be unable to support the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled amendments 15, 20 and 17. I suspect that he was even more surprised than me to hear the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) offer his unflinching support for my hon. Friend’s suggestions on this matter. I thank him for tabling his amendments because they make an extremely important contribution to the debate. We face a real issue in how we collectively address what is now a cross-party concern and shed light on the remuneration of executives, who are ultimately paid by the companies for which they work and by us as consumers of those goods in our society at large.
John McDonnell
I had better correct the record. As someone who still sees the relevance of Trotsky’s transitional programme, I am attempting not to salvage capitalism but to expose its weaknesses.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments, which propose a number of changes to the taxation of business. Let me start by reiterating our position on business tax. The first step in the Government’s plan for growth is a competitive UK tax system. In fact, the Government’s aim is to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20, and we have been clear about how we intend to achieve that. Last November we published our corporate tax road map, setting out our plans for reform over the next five years and the principles underpinning those reforms. I am quite clear that if we are to provide business with the certainty that it needs to invest in the UK, tax reforms need to maintain stability, avoid complexity and ensure a level playing field for taxpayers.
Let me deal first with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and in particular amendment 15, which deals with directors’ pay, and on which we saw an unlikely alliance between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) in defence of the interests of capital versus workers—if I can phrase it in a way that will please my hon. Friend but not the hon. Gentleman—albeit the highest paid workers. It is worth noting that both hon. Members have made many declarations of independence, and today was no exception. As I have said, a competitive tax regime is the foundation of our plan for growth, and the consequence of amendment 15 would be to delay the reduction in corporation tax.
The Government take the essence of the hon. Gentleman’s concern—directors’ remuneration—seriously; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills raised it on 22 June in a speech to the Association of British Insurers, asking how we can ensure that directors’ remuneration is effectively linked to company performance. To help answer that question, the Government already have plans to consult in two relevant areas. In July, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will look at the narrative aspects of reporting directors’ remuneration, examining the provisions dealing with the disclosure of directors’ remuneration and making the link to company performance much clearer. In the autumn, the Department will explore other policy options related to the role of remuneration committees and company accountability to shareholders.
Turning directly to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, let me first remind him that UK-quoted companies are already required to publish a directors’ remuneration report. That includes full individual details of each director’s pay, including salary and bonuses, share schemes and all other forms of remuneration. His proposal to make the remuneration vote binding in nature would raise difficulties, as such a vote would inevitably cut across contractual arrangements already entered into between the company and the director. That is why the vote is currently advisory in nature.
John McDonnell
Is this issue to be part of the consultation in the autumn? Will it be addressed at all?
Mr Gauke
As I have said, the consultations I have announced will focus on the narrative provisions, the role of remuneration committees and company accountability to shareholders. I am sure that representations could be made to the latter consultation. However, there remains a difficulty with cutting across contractual arrangements and I dare say that there might be issues with the Human Rights Act 1998 were that to happen.
John McDonnell
First, I think it would be greatly reassuring to the House overall if the issue of the binding vote was within the scope of those consultations. Secondly, the issue of contractual commitments has always been the red herring brought up on any future reform. The way around it is simply to make future contracts subject to that binding vote of shareholders.
Mr Gauke
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is trying to lose the support of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington on this, but I fully take his point on board and I shall ensure that BIS is aware of this debate. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has said that shareholder accountability is an area that his Department will be looking into in the autumn.
John McDonnell
This is a serious point, and I say to the Minister that this will come back time and again, because every Government structure put in place by successive Governments on this issue has been unsuccessful in controlling remuneration. There is outrage among the general public about what has been happening, not just in recent years but today with £6 billion bonuses in the City and elsewhere. I say to him in all seriousness that any Government need to address this issue, which concerns the democratic control of what are now public companies in terms of ownership.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman makes his point forcefully. It is worth pointing out that the UK leads the way internationally on the reporting of executive pay and accountability to shareholders. I hope that he will acknowledge that, just as I acknowledge the legitimate concerns he raises. It is our intention to make sure that the framework remains fit for purpose and in line with our approach to delivering long-term returns as our economy grows out of the recession.
The hon. Gentleman’s second amendment, amendment 17, would delay the introduction of clause 42 until a report on the impacts of the enterprise investment scheme had been published. In contrast with corporation tax as a whole, EIS is a focused relief with a particular purpose and is a vital component of the Government’s plan for growth. The scheme encourages investment into smaller, riskier companies by offering a tax incentive to investors. For example, it benefits new start-ups in high-tech sectors such as IT bioscience. Since 1994, about £7 billion from private investors has been contributed to qualifying companies. The Government are building on the success of the scheme with changes in this Finance Bill and in the Bill next year that will increase the incentive for people to invest in smaller companies, helping them to establish and grow.
John McDonnell
How do the Government assess value for money with regard to those schemes, if not in job creation?
Mr Gauke
There have been assessments of the enterprise investment scheme, which has been in place since 1994. We want to encourage greater investment, particularly in smaller companies. We recognise that sometimes there is market failure in that area, which is why tax incentives are justifiable. We have set out as much information as we can, but it is not something on which we can provide precise numbers. That is not the nature of the economy, but the scheme will encourage greater investment and that should be welcomed.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for his remarks on my award as tax personality of the year. Some may think it a somewhat oxymoronic award, but I can tell the House that it has changed my life considerably.
My hon. Friend brings much greater expertise to these matters than I do. I welcome the fact that he seeks simplicity, which is not always the case with new clauses and amendments to Finance Bills. I want to make a couple of points that relate to both his new clauses.
First, we do not see it as our role to direct the Office of Tax Simplification. The office has done a lot of good work, but it is important that its independence is respected. Secondly, in its broad work the OTS has looked at the various allowances and reliefs in the tax system and has concluded that they are not areas where it wants to devote its efforts. None the less, I know that the OTS will closely read my hon. Friend’s speech. We are always keen to look at areas where we can improve the administration of the tax system, including his proposals in new clause 14 on consolidated filing.
On new clause 12, the OTS has given initial consideration to capital allowances as part of its review of tax reliefs and its ongoing review of small business taxation. The Government have set out their approach to capital allowances in the corporate tax road map. Allowing each business asset to be written off for tax purposes in line with its own depreciation rates would not necessarily bring the benefits to businesses that the new clause anticipates. Some business assets would depreciate more slowly than they currently do under the capital allowances regime, and it should be noted that the annual investment allowance gives immediate write-off for the plant and machinery expenditure of 95% of UK businesses. There is thus a danger that the new clause could increase business tax complexity.
I know that my hon. Friend tabled his new clauses as probing provisions. I may not have entirely satisfied him, but he has put his case on record and the OTS will of course look carefully at what he says.
I turn finally to amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who has played a constructive role on the issue in the three months since the Budget announcement on oil and gas. He made an important contribution when the House debated clause 7 in the Committee of the whole House. He has stressed the importance of working closely with the industry in the months ahead, which the Government committed to do at the time of the Budget. We announced then that we would work with the industry in three key areas: setting the right trigger price for the fair fuel stabiliser; looking at whether we can find a way to provide long-term certainty on decommissioning relief; and looking at the case for new categories of field qualifying for the field allowance. I am pleased to tell the House that we are making good progress in these discussions. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who is here this evening, will update the House on progress on those discussions as soon as is appropriate. I hope and expect that she will be able to do so in the very near future. I thank my right hon. Friend for tabling his amendment. Although I have been unable to respond in full detail, I hope that the Government will be in a position to do so shortly.
In conclusion, I remind the House that it is the Government’s aim to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20. We have set out our plans for reform over the next five years in the corporate tax road map, which was published last November. In order to provide businesses with the certainty they need to invest in the UK, tax reforms need to maintain stability, avoid complexity and ensure a level playing field for taxpayers. Therefore, although we have had a good debate, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley to withdraw the motion.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I shall not press amendment 30 to a Division tonight, because we will return to the subject in greater detail later in the Parliament. However, I want to address some questions to those on the Treasury Bench. I accept that there are problems with the amendment, but it was the only way that I could find to debate the matter in the House.
I wish to remind the Minister that in the Budget debate of 2010, the Chancellor said that
“the Government are asking the public sector to accept a two-year pay freeze, but we will protect the lowest paid…They will each receive a flat pay rise worth £250”—[Official Report, 22 June 2006; Vol. 512, c. 171.]
He said that the cut-off point would be not £18,000 but £21,000 a year, and he, not the Opposition, estimated that 1.7 million people would receive that pay increase.
A number of Opposition Members, including those who put their names to amendment 30, and many hon. Members, have constituents who believed what the Government said. They believed that they would be protected. The Chancellor’s announcement was a crucial part of protecting those workers, but it was also a crucial part of selling to the wider public the pay freeze that the Government announced. However, those people have so far received no £250 pay increase.
I should therefore like to ask the Minister two questions. First, of the 1.7 million whom not I, but the Chancellor, said would be eligible, how many have received the £250 across-the-board pay increase? Next year’s earnings figures show that the numbers eligible will rise to 2.2 million. Therefore, my second question for those on the Treasury Bench is this: how many of that 2.2 million will receive their £250 pay increase?
I conclude by merely trying to express, perhaps inadequately, a sense of how low-paid workers in my constituency feel. They feel that they have again been let down. The previous Labour Government did not do too well by that group, with the 10p tax rate abolition, and this Government have done not too well by them. Many are women coming up to retirement age who now learn that they must work two years more. They thought they would get £250 as a lump sum to protect them against rising prices and a general wage freeze, but many now find that no such increase is forthcoming. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could give us answers to those two questions.
John McDonnell
May I associate myself with amendment 30, which I also signed? For my constituents, £250 means a lot. It is a lot of money in terms of paying daily bills, but it is also the difference between some children having a summer break this year and not. I hope the Minister responds positively and examines that matter, but I will give him this assurance: if we do not have positive assurances from the Government, we will be back time and again until that money is paid.
I wish to speak to amendment 14, which is in my name. The amendment simply proposes that, as we determine personal income tax rates for the coming year, we look carefully at their impact on inequality. The proposal is from various lobbies in recent months, from religious groups, churches, welfare rights groups, trade unions and other civil society organisations, which have expressed their anxiety about inequality in our society. Like them, I believe that our country is disfigured by inequality and the extremes of wealth and poverty. Consequently, I believe that we should use every legislative weapon possible to address it.
I mentioned some of the extremes of wealth and poverty in the earlier debate on executive pay—some top executives earn a salary that is 145 times the average salary of their workers. The Government’s assessment of wealth distribution last year showed that the total wealth of the top 10% of the population is now 100 times that of the bottom 10%. The simple reason is that the poorest have so little wealth.
In 1986 in the UK, the richest 1% held 25% of marketable wealth. Twenty years later, that had risen to 34% of total national wealth. The poorest 50% had gone from holding 11% of the nation’s wealth to holding just 1% today. That is not solely the result of economic trends or globalisation—it has been Government policy, largely in the 1980s and 1990s, to pursue the systematic redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, and the last Government at least held back the tide for a period.
Taxation policy has a key role to play in addressing inequality and I note that the Treasury Committee quoted Wendell Holmes’ popular dictum that tax is the price we pay for a civilised society. I agree, but civilisation has a range of definitions, one of which is that we should not live in a society that is so starkly unequal—
Kate Green
I very much support the sentiments my hon. Friend is expressing. Does he agree that it is not only the income and consumption taxes that need to be encompassed in his amendment, but the wealth taxes, especially in light of the examples that he has just given us?
John McDonnell
My amendment proposes examination of the whole range of taxes, indirect and direct. It is interesting that the direct taxation system can be progressive in redistribution, but that the indirect system is so regressive in this country. It has a considerable impact on ensuring that we see these vast extremes of poverty and wealth.
It is not only the lobbyists from various organisations who have expressed their concerns about this inequality, because the general public are averse to high levels of inequality too. In recent surveys, 80% to 90% have been in favour of a more equal distribution of wealth in our society. We have had various discussions in this House about the impact of inequality, and none better than the debates around the work by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, “The Spirit Level”, which was ground-breaking.
Richard Wilkinson was an adviser to my party in the early 1990s, when he did the earliest work on the impact of inequality on health. That was revisited in 2005, when he came to the House and briefed several MPs. “The Spirit Level” confirmed what he had suspected in the 1990s and started the debate. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have both accepted that inequality is an issue that must be addressed. In 2009, the Prime Minister quoted from Richard Wilkinson’s book in a major speech, demonstrating that the Conservative party at that time was keen to address some of the issues of inequality. He said that
“among the richest countries it’s the more unequal ones that do worse according to almost every quality of life indicator.”
In his first major speech as leader, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“I do believe that this country is too unequal and the gap between rich and poor doesn’t just harm the poor, it harms us all.”
That is based on the work in “The Spirit Level”.
The argument in “The Spirit Level” is straightforward—that when people in the same social class, at the same level of income and education, are compared across countries, those in more equal societies do better on every measurement, be it health, mortality, obesity, teenage birth rates or mental illness. Their quality of social relations is better too. Inequality is socially divisive, increasing the rate of homicide, hostility and racism. The level of trust in unequal societies is lower than in societies that are more equal, and social capital is less —the engagement in civil society and even in political processes. That is why we need to address the issue of inequality when we consider taxes and our financial strategy.
I realise that this has been a contentious debate, and I have read the arguments made by the TaxPayers Alliance, which has tried to rebut Wilkinson and Pickett’s work, but I have also read the more recent independent research studies that have simply reinforced the inequality argument. Whichever side of the argument Members fall, it is clearly an issue to be considered, and that is why I suggest that we look at taxation as a whole—
Stephen Williams
I agree with virtually everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. I have “The Spirit Level” at home and it will be part of my summer reading as I have not had time to read it yet. Does he at least acknowledge that one of the good things that the coalition Government have done is reduce the exposure to income tax of the lowest paid in society, while at the same time increasing capital gains tax? His Government did the reverse.
John McDonnell
I believe that the hon. Gentleman joined the House at the last election.
John McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been reading my alternative Budgets that I table year after year and which address some of those issues, although he is not alone in not having read them—but there you are!
The purpose of amendment 14 is to examine the issue again and regularly. The equality assessments that we receive from the Government in the budgetary papers consist of one sentence telling us who will gain and who will lose. They do not address the issue of inequality. A wider debate is needed, however, and my amendment would ensure that that debate is revisited and kept in close focus as we determine our financial policies. There have been previous attempts at this, and various reports by various governmental bodies have partly addressed the issue, but they have not been related to specific policy decisions or policy development.
This is more of a plea. The previous Government, of which I had occasional criticisms, set up an excellent initiative in founding the national equality panel under its chair, Professor John Hills. The panel still exists within the Home Office, and it produced a major report in January 2010 entitled, “An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK”. It was extremely detailed and brought together the evidence on economic inequality in our society. It was enlightening and depressing but at the same time motivating. It was enlightening because it exposed not only the scale of inequality but the trend growth over time, which, as I said, was only arrested in the previous decade, not reversed. It was depressing because, as the report stated, the sheer scale of inequalities in outcome—for instance, the sheer scale of differences in wealth—was shocking. The report even implied that it might be impossible to create a cohesive society given the scale of inequality.
The report identified a backdrop of widespread ignorance of the scale of inequality and the lack of awareness in society as a whole among the rich and the poor. It was not just the poor who did not realise how unequal society was; it was also the richest. The report was motivating because it demonstrated that public policy interventions can reduce inequality, particularly interventions around tax and welfare benefits. They can narrow gaps between the rich and the poor and create a more cohesive and successful society. My plea, through this amendment, is that before we agree tax levels, we address the issue of inequality and that we bring forward a further report. I suggest that the national equality panel continues its work, assesses the taxation policies set out in the Budget and brings a report back to the House so that we can be sure that the policies we are pursuing are addressing inequality in our society.
I am obviously aware that through the Child Poverty Act 2010 the previous Government set up the Child Poverty Commission, the remit of which has now been extended to include the issue of social mobility. I am sure that the commission could play a valuable role in assessing the tax decisions in the Finance Bill and their impact on inequality.
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an important opportunity to look again at the assertion that the countries with the highest levels of inequality are also those with the least social fluidity and therefore at the role that tax could play in achieving the Government’s social mobility objectives?
John McDonnell
That is particularly important given that we are in if not a recession, a period of economic inactivity in which the economy has been scraping along the bottom. We have 2.5 million unemployed, of whom nearly 1 million are young people and 1.7 million people are in enforced short or part-time working. As Richard Wilkinson demonstrated, during the ’80s, the social psychological response was either fight or fright: fright meant depression, alcohol and drugs, and fight often meant violence on our streets and, unfortunately, an increase in violent crime.
We should be addressing those issues now, as we pass through this economic recession, which might last some time. It behoves us, as we discuss taxation and if taxation can play a role in addressing inequality, to examine the matter in detail. The amendment simply tries to emphasise that inequality is an important issue that has to be addressed and that all legislation needs to be reviewed and assessed in the light of its impact and effectiveness in addressing inequality. The amendment therefore calls for a report to be brought back to the House addressing that matter. In that way, we might at least acquire an understanding of the impact of taxation policies on inequality, even if we might disagree on specific taxation policies.
Mr Love
I associate myself with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and its focus on inequality. I want to pick up on that focus, and on the discussion we had a few moments ago about the Government’s claim that we are all in this together. I shall subject that to scrutiny through amendment 13, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). As my right hon. Friend said, and as has been said by those on our Front Bench, the Conservative manifesto at the 2010 general election included a commitment to
“freeze public sector pay for one year in 2011, excluding the one million lowest paid workers”.
It was announced in the 2010 Budget that there would be a two-year pay freeze, except for those earning £21,000 or less, who would receive an increase of at least £250 a year. In his statement, the Chancellor went on to say that 1.7 million public servants would benefit from that and receive the £250 for two years.
In the Budget statement this year, the Chancellor had changed his tune somewhat. He said:
“I can confirm today that in the coming year all workers in the armed forces, the prison service and the NHS, and teachers and civil servants, earning £21,000 a year or less will receive a pay uplift of £250.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 508, c. 963.]
That is considerably less than the commitment given in the 2010 Budget, and it is different from—and, in a sense, considerably less than—the commitment given in the Conservative manifesto. Some work has been done that shows that if the measures include only public sector workers who are under ministerial control and subject to pay review bodies—that is in essence what the Chancellor is saying—that commitment is very considerably less. As I understand it, it equates to less than half the original number affected.
In supporting amendment 30, I want to ask the Minister directly whether he accepts that the Conservative manifesto misled the people of this country. Does he accept that, in his Budget statement in 2010, the Chancellor misled the House and the people of this country? Does he also accept that the present number of people who will benefit from the £250 uplift is considerably lower than the number originally envisaged? In those circumstances, and given the difficulties that we face in a debate of this nature on taxation, will he accept the thrust of the amendment? Will the Government recommit to doing something to address low pay for those earning less than £21,000 a year? Will the Minister also ensure that everyone earning under that amount will receive the £250, given that only some are doing so at present?
Mr Gauke
As was mentioned earlier, we have increased capital gains tax rates from those that we inherited, and our income tax decreases have been focused on the low paid. That is an example of what we are trying to do. The point is how to ensure that we have a competitive tax system so that we have the growth that the economy needs and that benefits all our constituents.
Let me turn to the report requested by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
I draw his attention to the detailed analysis that the Government have published on the impact of direct tax, indirect tax, tax credits and benefit reforms, which can be found in annexe A to “Budget 2011”. The Government have gone further than any previous Government in presenting distributional analysis of how changes to taxes, tax credits and benefits affect households. We have published detailed analysis at Budget 2011, the spending review and the June Budget 2010. That analysis shows that the top decile sees the largest losses from the cumulative impact of tax, tax credit and benefit reforms introduced at Budget 2011 and previous fiscal events. In cash terms, the top decile loses more than twice as much as the ninth decile, and 10 times as much as the bottom decile. That is the case if one looks at the overall impact or in cash terms, as a percentage of net income, or across income or expenditure deciles.
John McDonnell
Will the Government publish anything with regard to the distribution of wealth—for example, the impact of such policies on the Gini co-efficient?
Mr Gauke
We will make further announcements as and when necessary, but we are publishing much more information on distributional analysis than any previous Government have. It is right to do so, and to take steps to ensure that the House and the whole country can debate such matters with as much information presented in future. A striking contrast can be drawn with regard to one policy—the doubling of the 10p rate—about which the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) had concerns. It was difficult to obtain any information on that policy’s impact, although we have learned in recent weeks that much of the information about that was available to Ministers at the time.
Amendment 30 seeks to provide a one-off £250 reduction in the tax liability of all public sector employees earning less than £21,000. In the June 2010 Budget, we announced a two-year pay freeze for public sector workers earning a full-time equivalent of £21,000. That is one of the many difficult choices that we have had to make to help put the UK’s public finances back on track, and it does not mean that we do not value the work done throughout the public sector. All Members know that those in the public sector work hard for the benefit of society. However, pay freezes of this sort save jobs. Given that we are having to constrain public spending and given that the fiscal deficit requires cuts, a pay freeze will help to mitigate the effect of those cuts. Because we recognise that the freeze will be hardest on the lowest-paid public sector workers, it was announced in the June Budget that those earning a full-time equivalent of £21,000 or less would receive an uplift of at least £250 in both years of the freeze.
Both the Labour party’s manifesto at the time of the last general election and the 2009 pre-Budget report announced a 1% increase for public sector workers across the board, apart from the armed services. No distinction was made between the low paid and the high paid. Under a Labour Government, none of those earning less than £21,000 a year—including nurses, teaching assistants, police community support officers and hospital porters—would be receiving a £250 increase.
Mr Gauke
It is for local authorities to determine what they pay their employees, but we have given them the extra money to fund this, and we would like local authorities to fulfil the objective that we are achieving at national level. We do not control local authorities, but we can provide them with the funding, and we did that. Our intention was that all low-paid workers would receive the £250, but we do not—and should not—have the ability to mandate local authorities to pay their workers, and that is currently up to them.
John McDonnell
When the Chancellor made his statement, there were no caveats; it was a straightforward commitment to pay 1.7 million workers the £250. The Chancellor gave a moral commitment; it therefore behoves the Government to intervene to ensure the Chancellor’s pledge is fulfilled to all 1.7 million workers, without any caveats.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
Indeed. We are dealing specifically with clause 10, but it overlaps, as will be discussed further, with clauses 11 and 12. Manufacturing is a key part of our economy, but it needs support in order to fuel future jobs growth. The Government thus need to explain today and later in Committee upstairs why they are cutting investment allowances for manufacturers by about £75,000 and using that money to give a corporation tax cut that will go predominantly not to manufacturing, but to financial services industries.
I have made a claim, and I am happy for the Minister to challenge it and to explain why the corporation tax cut we considered and agreed in clause 4 will be skewed towards the financial services industries which are not creating manufacturing jobs. I originally hoped to have clauses 4 and 10 considered in tandem as they are inextricably linked. The key issue is that the corporation tax cut is going predominantly to a certain sector, while the manufacturing capital allowance cut will predominantly hit manufacturing industry. We need to reflect on that.
I will refer briefly back to clause 4, but it is relevant, Ms Primarolo. The Chancellor’s “Budget for growth”, which he trumpeted in March, included an additional 1% corporation tax cut at the final moment. We know that, because the Office for Budget Responsibility said in paragraph B13 of the Budget 2011 policy costings:
“The OBR was notified of the change to corporation tax and the 1p cut in fuel duty from 1 April 2011 too late to incorporate any indirect effect of these measures in the economy forecast.”
If so, the capital allowances under clause 10 will come into effect with that reduction next year, but there is no assessment of whether the additional corporation tax cut, along with the fuel duty rise and other issues I have mentioned, will impact positively or negatively next year. Given the lack of thought and consultation on those issues, we need to reflect on them at an early stage, which is what the amendment says.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
There is anxiety about the lack of assessment; it was undertaken so perfunctorily by the OBR because it was a last-minute decision by the Chancellor. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the grounds for that decision being taken in such a last-minute manner? Was it a political stunt? Was there a rationale for it? How does he understand not just the decision itself, but the fact that it happened literally in the final 24 hours—at the last minute—before the Budget?
Mr Hanson
I could speculate on those points for my hon. Friend, but the Minister might be in a better position to comment on them. I will give my hon. Friend one thought, however. Perhaps the Chancellor realised that unemployment is rising because of the squeeze on public spending over the year; that growth is slowing because people feel uncertain in their jobs and businesses are not willing to invest; and that the level, depth and speed of public spending cuts over the next two years will lead to growing unemployment—not just in the public sector, but in the private sector, as people in private businesses depend on public investment. For those reasons, I suggest, the Chancellor has had to make additional changes to do what I believe is the right thing: to try to stimulate private sector growth.
If last-minute thought has been given to the impact of corporation tax changes and if full assessments have not been made of the impact of VAT on public spending cuts, we need to be aware that capital allowance reductions are coming into effect in April next year. The amendment simply says:
“The Chancellor shall publish, by 31 October 2012, an assessment of the impact of the changes to capital allowances on the UK economy.”
I find it difficult to think of anybody who would object to that. I am sure that the Treasury would make such an assessment as a matter of course in any case. Any good business—and the Treasury is a good business—would look at its outputs, outcomes and impacts and reflect on how they will affect the customer base, which in this case is manufacturing industry.
I have real concerns about the decision to reduce the rate of writing-down allowances for new and unrelieved expenditure, as I believe it could impact adversely on smaller businesses and on businesses that are more likely to invest, such as manufacturers. I say this because the Government regularly claim that small businesses are the key to future growth in the economy. Who depends on a capital allowance more—a very large or a smaller business? The argument I put to the Minister is that small businesses would be more affected.
Nobody disagrees with the fact that the UK should have a competitive tax regime, and the corporation tax cut should help with that in principle. The Government are paying for it by the measures in clauses 10, 11 and 12—slashing investment allowances by £2.6 billion. The package will penalise companies that invest, particularly manufacturing companies, in order to offer tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit the banks and the financial sector. At a time when the Government claim they are rebalancing the economy by trying to encourage manufacturing, this package could—I say could—do the reverse.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:
“The largest beneficiaries from the package of measures”—
including corporation tax and capital allowances—
“will be high-profit, low investment firms”,
such as financial services, while the cuts to allowances under clauses 10, 11 and 12 will
“have the largest impact on those firms with capital-intensive operations”,
such as manufacturers. That is a direct quote—from page 229, for the Minister’s reference—from the IFS Green Budget 2011. The IFS also agrees:
“The losers would be firms that invested heavily but made little profit—notably in the manufacturing and transport sectors but also some capital-intensive service-sector firms. The winners will be less capital-intensive but more profitable firms, historically typified by the financial sector.”
I do not know whether it will pan out like that in real life, but my point is that if it does, clauses 4 and 10 together will mean giving a corporation tax cut that benefits the financial services sector most and a capital allowance cut that damages the private sector of small and medium-sized manufacturing industries most. That cannot be a good recipe for growth in the economy.
Nigel Mills
If we want a competitive corporate tax system, the tax rate is key. However, we probably need to examine four things, which include the tax base, as the hon. Gentleman said, and the complexity, stability and predictability of the system. We are in danger of just ticking the first box; I am not sure we are ticking the tax-base box well with this approach, and we are adding extra complexity. Many regimes around the world do not have capital allowances but do let businesses take the depreciation that they see in their accounts. That is a far more attractive, simple and predictable system, because businesses would not think, “I might invest in this piece of equipment, but they might reduce this to 15% in three years’ time and my relief suddenly starts to look different.” As the hon. Gentleman was trying to say, this involves a combination of things. We need to get not only the rate right, but the base and the underlying system right; we will not get all the advantages from simply reducing the rate.
However, for most businesses the first headline comparison is about the overall tax rate, so that is the main thing to focus on. I am not going to vote against this rate reduction. Paying for the reduced rate partly by reduced capital allowances is the right way to go in this financial situation, but we need to go in the direction of simplifying our incredibly complex corporate tax system. We can all work out the statistics by saying, “When I started work 13 years ago, my tax legislation was so big and when I left a year ago it was much bigger, and I have not even got the VAT and inheritance tax book.” We can look at how many schedules on income—actual capital—we have and consider how many of them we actually need. The capital allowance regime is part of that problem, because it was written 50 or 100 years ago, when it actually worked. A lot of these things are out of date, so we must look to simplify things if we want to ask businesses to invest. I am not sure that they are going to worry about whether something is at 18% or 20%, but they do want tax relief for their investment over the useful life of their asset provided in a way that is simple for them to manage. I am not sure that we are anywhere near providing that at the moment.
A lot of my clients use the capital allowances regime to add flexibility to how they get tax relief in the years when they have profits and in the right entities in which they have profits. They will not entirely welcome my idea of simplifying this system and taking all that away from them. However, if we are to get a modern, competitive corporate tax system, it must be simple and easy to understand. It must also do what we want it to do: incentivise the investment that we desperately need to have a growing economy.
John McDonnell
I have a fair amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), because if he ever wants to return to his former profession he may well find that he has lost a number of clients as a result of that speech.
The linkage between clauses 4 and 10 is inevitable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said from the Front Bench, because the corporation tax reductions are being paid for by these cuts in capital allowances. I do not want to upset the consensus that has emerged on the cuts in corporation tax, but I do not support them and believe that they will be an error in the long run. I address the issue of capital allowances in that context.
I am unclear as to what the Government’s strategy is on stimulating the economy to tackle the recession in a way that rebalances the economy. I thought that this was not just going to be a rebalancing between the public and private sectors. I listened to some of the statements made by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about rebalancing the economy as between the finance sector and the manufacturing sector, which gained support across the House. We heard about the development of a manufacturing strategy that would enable us to have a balanced economy between the finance, manufacturing and service sectors, so that if there was a crisis in one sector, the whole economy would not collapse as a result of overdependence on that sector. However, these Budget measures seem to fly in the face of that balanced approach.
A number of methods can be used to re-stimulate the economy, one of which is tax cuts, including corporation tax cuts, as have been introduced in this Bill. Another method is the more directional approach of considering a form of tax cuts through the capital allowances, whereby the Government try to influence economic behaviour in a way they believe to be beneficial. The other method is to invest in largely capital expenditure through public services—I am talking about public investment.
John McDonnell
As my right hon. Friend said earlier, all these clauses are linked and it is difficult to disaggregate them. Clause 10 is certainly being used a mechanism to fund the allowances being distributed to companies overall. As I say, I find it extremely difficult to link that to the rationale that has been given by both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister in the past.
Jim Fitzpatrick
One of the biggest elements of British manufacturing is the food industry. When I was a Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the National Farmers Union lobbied me aggressively. Consequently, I lobbied the Treasury, as DEFRA does, about capital allowances in respect of buildings and equipment for the farming community. Has my hon. Friend had a chance to talk to the NFU about the comments he is making? Has he any understanding about whether it is being penalised in order to assist transnational corporations from outside the UK? Is this being done instead of supporting British manufacturing and British business people?
John McDonnell
Strangely enough, given that I represent Hayes and Harlington, an urban area, I do not have an awful lot of engagement with the NFU, although my area does still have one farm left in it. I have an engagement with Hillingdon chamber of commerce—I am meant to be hosting its annual parliamentary lunch at the moment—and a number of its members have explained to me their concerns about the impact on small firms. I share the view of the hon. Member for Amber Valley: capital allowances should not be used just as mechanisms to be manipulated in years of high profit. There is a need for an overall review of capital allowances, but I find it unacceptable to cut them in the short term to pay for corporation tax reductions and for the beneficial treatment of multinational corporations. That is why I support the amendment, which is fairly mild-mannered and simply asks whether we can reconsider the matter.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said, I would expect a wise Government to have the Treasury carry out such an assessment regularly. The amendment asks for that process to be more open and transparent and for it to be reported to the House so that we can have a full and thorough debate. I hope that the Minister can assure us that he can at least give us some line of reporting on the implementation of the policy over the coming period.
It worries me that as we cut capital allowances, which will reduce corporation tax in this country, we will get into a cycle just like that in the 1930s with an internecine battle between countries about reducing corporation taxes. That will lead to a policy of beggar thy neighbour in order to secure some short-term gain in the form of overseas investment in the UK. I do not believe that that is the solution and I think it will be found to be counter-productive in the long term, even though there might be some short-term gains to tide the Government over for the next 18 months, if they survive that long.
I believe that the Government are mistaken in bringing forward this process of corporation tax reduction. If we are paying for that through the capital allowances changes, we will divide industry and the private sector. A large number of small firms, particularly in the manufacturing sector, will lose out and will not gain sufficiently as a result of the corporation tax cuts. Other areas of the economy, particularly the finance sector, will gain yet again and yet more anxiety will be expressed in the private sector about the Government’s divide-and-rule policy.
Andrew Gwynne
Is it not worse than that? Many of the small manufacturing industries in my constituency have been dependent on an old declining style of manufacturing. The capital allowances were the mechanism that they used to diversify. On my hon. Friend’s point about rebalancing the economy, if we are to do that in areas that are heavily dependent on manufacturing industry, we must allow them to diversify into the new technologies and new manufacturing sectors.
John McDonnell
That is exactly the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn made and that I wish to reiterate. Capital allowances were introduced as a method of the Government’s trying to shape behaviour within industry as best we could. They were a way to stimulate sectors of the economy, but they have also been used to stimulate innovation. The Government are committed to the stimulation of the green economy and I, like other Members on both sides of the House, deeply regret the Government’s failure to act sufficiently swiftly to establish the green investment bank and to get it up and running, but that is a subject for another debate.
The role of capital allowances, particularly in the environmental field, could be key and cutting them with this broad-brush approach will deny the opportunity to the environmental industries, particularly those involved in the development of renewables, to become world leaders as the Government envisaged that they would in the coming period, an idea that we all supported. This is my right hon. Friend’s point: if a review of the impact of the capital allowances were linked to the disastrous corporation tax policies overall, we would have the opportunity to consider the implications sector by sector and industry by industry as well as the design of the appropriate mechanisms, allowances or other things to stimulate those sectors of industry.
Mr Hanson
Does my hon. Friend accept that one key factor is the lack of a focus on outcomes in the consideration of the impact of the changes in both clause 4 on corporation tax and clause 10 on capital allowances? One key thing that the review would do, if we can secure from the Government today an aspiration to find out what the changes will mean for real jobs and the manufacturing industry, is test in 18 months’ time whether those changes have been successful.
John McDonnell
Let me put it this way, as mildly as I possibly can: we hardly have a description of evidence-based policy making before us. Let us go back to the example of the additional 1p cut given by my right hon. Friend. When the Treasury Committee considered the matter, it invited evidence and Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, was questioned about the impact it would have. He said that we did not know about that with any precision. We do not know with any precision what the impact of the overall cut in corporation tax will be and we certainly do not know with any precision, globally or sectorally, what the impact of the capital allowances cuts will be. We are stepping into the dark and going down the wrong path and that is why we should have the review.
I fear that a number of companies might have planned their development in advance based on the capital allowances that they thought were secure and would be forthcoming because of the statements of the previous Government as well of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the past 12 months. They will now not proceed with that investment and as a result, the companies might not be put at risk but they will certainly not expand in the way that they planned and that will have consequences for jobs. In certain areas—my right hon. Friend has mentioned at great length the higher unemployment rates in certain regions—the effects on individual communities will be fairly catastrophic if this job growth does not go ahead.
I oppose the reduction in corporation tax, as I think it is misguided. I would prefer it if, instead of cutting taxes to companies and forgoing that income, we could use the income from the top companies and corporations to invest in public infrastructure projects that will get people back to work and stimulate the economy overall. The last thing I would suggest the Government should do, even if they are cutting corporation tax, is pay for that cut with cuts in capital allowances. In my view, that flies in the face of everything that the Government have said about rebalancing the economy, stimulating the manufacturing base and shaping behaviour so that there is a longer-term view of investment in the capital and manufacturing infrastructure of this country based on security and the knowledge of the income that a company will have to invest in the future.
Even if the Government cannot withdraw these provisions on the cuts in capital allowances and reconsider those on the corporation tax, I urge them at least to allow us to reconsider the matter within 18 months, as the amendment says, to see the implications overall. I honestly do not understand the fear within Government of having an open examination of this matter within that time scale. If I were a Minister, I would welcome it. If I were an advocate for this policy, I would welcome the opportunity to come back in 18 months or so and, if necessary, to gloat at its success. I certainly would not want to feel that I was on the run and hiding from the consequences of the decisions that I had proposed in a Finance Bill of this nature.
Mr Love
I echo the final comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the amendment. It mentions capital allowances—that is what we are discussing—and the impact they will have on the UK economy is of particular concern at the moment.
We must comment on the backdrop to this debate, as the economy has stalled over the past six months. We had a very bad final quarter of 2010 and although things improved in the first quarter of this year, the reality is that everyone was expecting much larger growth in the first quarter to compensate to some extent for the lack of growth in the final quarter of last year. If one reads what the commentators and forecasters have said, one sees that there is genuine concern, which is reflected in the figures provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The predicted growth rate has gone from 2.6% to 1.7%, but that figure might already be out of date, so there could be further reductions in the rate.
Mr Love
I agree, as other Members do, that that is not an unreasonable request. If the Government choose not to support the amendment, are they concerned about the impact of capital allowances and the prospects for the UK economy? One wonders whether they do not want the debate that would ensue in 2012 when, if we are to believe Government figures and the OBR, the economy should turn a corner. That would be an appropriate time at which to carry out that investigation.
There are 5 million small businesses in this country, and it is a symbol of the unity that we occasionally achieve in the Chamber that Members from all parts of the House recognise the role that they play now and, importantly, in future. If we add to the impact of capital allowances on small businesses the failure of the banking system in this country to provide the credit necessary to expand the sector, I wonder whether we can achieve all that the Government hope to achieve through the shift from public sector to private sector activity. I merely raise that as an additional issue, but I hope that the Government will address the credit needs of the small business sector a little more robustly. That is what underpins the amendment.
John McDonnell
I apologise, Ms Primarolo, for leaving the Chamber earlier. Should there not be some consultation of small businesses in particular so that they could describe the nature of the investments that they would forgo if they failed to secure the capital allowances that they normally secured under previous regimes? That would allow the Government to assess the overall impact of the loss of those investments to sectors of industry and on employment overall.
Mr Love
My hon. Friend makes my point. That is exactly why, once the changes have been introduced, we need to review and assess their impact, particularly on small businesses and more generally on the economy. We would like to be reassured that the headline rate cap with the changes to the allowances will make a material and positive difference to the economy.
I commend the amendment to the Committee and in particular to the Minister. I hope he will consider carefully what is asked for and agree that it is a constructive amendment that he can support. I hope that together we can make a real difference to the prospects for the UK economy.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
Absolutely, and, as we have heard time and again, Government Members clearly do not understand the causes of the deficit, so they are not the right people to solve it. If they understood and acknowledged that the banks played a significant role in causing the deficit, maybe—just maybe—we would take up their suggestions on how we go forward, but they choose to ignore the role that the banks played—[Laughter.] If the hon. Members for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) and for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) think that the banks did not play a role in the deficit, we will all be interested to hear from them, but surely they have to acknowledge that point.
The bonus pools and pots continue to be significant, however, and some bankers receive obscene, life-changing sums of money, so we do not really need to worry too much about poor banking executives; we should worry about those who depend on vital services but will now go without as a result of Ministers’ choices.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I have only just understood the criticism from Government Members. The criticism of the bankers bonus levy, however, which the previous Government introduced, was that there would be tax avoidance and it would not raise enough. I attacked the former Chancellor on the bonus levy, because I felt that his estimate of £500 million was pathetic and did not go far enough, but may I now admit guilt? It actually raised seven times that amount, £3.5 billion, so it was probably one of most successful tax regimes that the previous Government introduced. I thought I had better get that off my chest.
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend’s arguments become increasingly attractive, and he makes an important point. The bank bonus tax, which the previous Labour Government introduced, appeared at first to be modest, but in fact the yield was very significant indeed. Did the banks collapse as a result of the bonus levy? No. Did they all flee abroad to relocate somewhere else, as threatened? Absolutely not. So, too, with the continuing scale of the bonus pot, which has hardly changed at all, it is absolutely right that we look to reinstitute the levy this year, along with a decent bank levy, as we are discussing today.
Hon. Members will know that the concept of a bank levy was first developed at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in 2009, and then championed by my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister and taken forward by the International Monetary Fund in its report, which aimed to encourage less risky funding to enhance financial stability. Two broad conclusions were reached at the Pittsburgh summit. There was a call for a financial activities tax, or financial transactions tax, which we need to debate another time when we consider some of the extra levies that might be put on activities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself still professes to be in favour of a financial activities tax, although he has done absolutely nothing to advocate it in ECOFIN or in other financial meetings around the world, so we will see whether anything comes of his repeated promises to pursue it.
The second prong of the IMF’s report was a financial stability contribution, otherwise known as a bank levy, to be charged on equities and liabilities rather than assets or profits because of the need to disincentivise dangerous potential charges such as those that landed on the taxpayer during the credit crunch. The bank levy is a sensible idea in theory, and we broadly support it. However, the yield suggested in the Bill—only £2.6 billion—is not just small but pathetic by international standards when compared with the rate being pursued in other countries. It is perplexing that Ministers settled on that figure, and there has never been any evidential basis published for why they did so. Will the Minister clarify why the Chancellor chose the figure of £2.6 billion, as that seems to be the pole around which all aspects of the bank levy revolve? If there is any sense in which the revenue might go beyond that envelope, the Treasury tweaks and turns down the dials on the other aspects of the levy to squeeze it back into that £2.6 billion of revenue—the predetermined level that it put out to consultation last summer, never explaining why it was set. Compared with the substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money put up in the bail-out of the banks—£76 billion of shares purchased in the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds, £250 billion of guarantees, another £280 billion of other insurances, and a further £100 billion of annual implied subsidy, according to the Bank of England—a £2.6 billion bank levy is very puny.
It is interesting to look at the Treasury document that lists the respondents to the bank levy consultation. There were 44 respondents, all of which are major financial institutions.
Chris Leslie
I wonder whether Hansard is able to record the irony in my hon. Friend’s comments. Sometimes I wonder whether we need a new annotation in our proceedings, because I do not honestly think that he is showing sympathy. I think he is suggesting that even when there is an apparent reduction in bonuses, the sums of money involved are the sort for which our constituents would buy a lottery ticket in the hope of winning. If they won that amount it would change their lives tremendously, yet those life-changing sums of money are not even salaries but bonuses on top of salaries.
I wish to talk about the rate at which the Government have chosen to set the bank levy, because it is a low rate by international standards. It is less than a third of the level that has been set in France, for example. Ministers will know that the rate varies in a number of jurisdictions, but I think that it is 0.25% in France. The levels involved are still quite small, but in Hungary it is 0.53%, in the USA it is 0.15%—although, as I said, it has not been enacted at this point—in Portugal it is 0.1%, and so on. It is to be only 0.078% here in the UK for short-term liabilities, and 0.039% for long-term liabilities, which is very small by international standards.
John McDonnell
To emphasise a point that my hon. Friend made earlier, does he agree that the robustness of the statements of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister on bankers’ bonuses before and just after the election led the general population to expect a much stronger and more ferocious levy?
Chris Leslie
Indeed, and not only can we see the low yield figures in this country; we can also look at international comparisons and see that the rate is clearly very low indeed. Ministers have let it drift—as soon as it looks as though it might be a serious tax, back they come from the rate they have set, saying that it would raise too much and they must reduce it again.
Stella Creasy
I apologise to the Chair if I am not being clear, but I see this in the context of paragraph (b) of the amendment on the wider regulation of the banking system, and the importance of trying to use the opportunity that the bank levy presents to effect a positive impact on the way in which money is lent to those on low incomes.
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for a considerable period. Is it not true that the bank levy could be used as a lever to prise these other reforms out of the overall system?
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. This is born out of my frustration at the fact that the Government have so far refused even to contemplate taking action. I hope that this time round the Treasury team will seriously consider how the bank levy could be used to effect such action. The concept of adequacy in the amendment offers us an opportunity to ask whether the bank levy is being levied in a way that deals with high-cost credit and its impact. This debate has been about the appropriate level of the levy and its impact on banks, and I would argue that it could be extended to an appropriate levy on high-cost credit industries. We could then look at the way in which such companies pass on their costs to consumers who are particularly struggling in the economic conditions that we face. As Debt on our Doorstep points out, the fixed costs of lending in the home credit industry represent about 15% of revenues, yet the cost of borrowing from such companies is £82 in collection charges for every £100 lent. It is therefore no surprise that their profits have gone up by 40% in the past year as the lack of regulation in the industry allows them to run riot in our local communities.
There is broad agreement on the need to act on the impact of these companies, and the clause could be amended and applied in such a way as to enable that to happen. Citizens Advice has argued that the Government should not use the need for regulation of the financial sector as a cover for failing to act in these markets, as has the Centre for Responsible Credit—and as have many Ministers. I urge Ministers to talk to colleagues who, prior to 2010, advocated caps on the cost of interest rates. The Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs was very supportive at that time, but he seems to have changed his mind. [Interruption.] I agree entirely with the suggestion that perhaps that is yet another broken promise. We are talking about the 5 million to 7 million people in our communities who are affected by not being able to access mainstream credit and who are forced to use such companies. The bank levy gives us the opportunity to send a strong message to those companies that the way in which they act is deleterious to our communities and to our economy as more people are stuck in debt.
Barry Gardiner
That is the sad fact of our situation. I am sure that all of us, as constituency MPs, have business people coming to us saying that they cannot get credit. Indeed, many successful businesses that have had no change in their circumstances are suddenly being told by their banks that their credit facilities are no longer there. The banks are unilaterally changing the terms of those facilities, and the Government must do something about that. They cannot on one hand let the banks off with a £20 billion tax allowance for bonuses and, on the other hand, say that they do not have to ensure that they are lending to small businesses.
The difference between Opposition and Government Members goes right to the heart of whether we believe that the most important thing to do is to get growth back into the economy, get money flowing into small businesses and pay people a decent wage rather than make them redundant—that means that their spending on goods and services does not contract, and they spend money on brown goods and white goods and generate wealth and jobs in the economy, so that we grow our way through the problems—or whether we believe that we have simply to cut, cut, cut the public sector and pay, pay, pay the bankers’ bonuses.
John McDonnell
I would welcome the amendment because I think it is time to stand back and review the future role of levies. The amendment seeks to prise out the Government’s analysis regarding the rate and the threshold of the levy, but it also gives us the opportunity to debate the overall adequacy of a levy and its role in the economic situation that we face.
I echo the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) in saying that the world has moved on and the role of bank levies is different now. The first early-day motion on this matter, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I eight years ago, in advance of the crisis, related specifically to the profligacy of the banks in their distribution of bonuses. We gained the support of 40 Members of the House. At that stage, the role of the proposed levy was fairly clear cut and straightforward: it was to act as a disincentive to the payment of such obscene bonuses, as others have described them.
Then, economic crisis hit us. The first sign was Northern Rock. I remember being in the Chamber when we exposed the role of Granite in Northern Rock and the tax fiddles, avoidance and evasion—whatever we want to call it—that were taking place. We called for the Government to use public ownership to nationalise and stabilise the banking system, but we added to that a call for the maintenance of a levy system, because we wanted to prevent a recurrence of the bankers’ bonuses during a period of recession caused by their profligacy.
As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, the world has moved on, and we now have a bizarre situation. Yes, a levy on privately owned banks that are making profits and paying large bonuses is relevant, but introducing a levy on publicly owned banks is bizarre—it is a circular form of taxation—which is why the review proposed in the amendment is important. Surely if we own banks, we should end such bonuses by diktat and enforce reasonable lending using our management control. I hope that the review will examine the adequacy of future bank levy arrangements.
I compliment a number of my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate, none more passionately than my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who reflected the climate of anger in which this debate takes place. There is anger about how individuals have been treated by the banks, but also anger about the impact of the banks on the overall economy. The impact has also been felt by families in the loss of jobs and cuts in services. If we are to have a review of the bank levy, I would welcome a commitment to absolute openness and transparency about the nature of the banks’ current operations. Many people are bewildered by the banks’ lack of adherence to the exhortations of successive Governments on the role that they should play, particularly in lending and long-term investment.
I welcome the proposed production of a report, but I would prefer it to be published earlier. The amendment proposes a deadline of “before 31 December 2011”, but I would want the report no later than the autumn, because I believe we need a tighter analysis and review regime for the banks.
I am no longer sure that the Government know what the levy is meant to achieve; they are certainly not clear on the appropriate rate, or even to whom and what the levy should apply. The previous Chancellor’s levy was clearly a bonus tax: it was an attempt to influence the behaviour of the banks and to end the remuneration system that encouraged reckless behaviour and the taking of excessive risk. The objective was also to raise income, although that was not the stated primary aim. Bizarrely—this is why I admitted an error earlier—the levy failed to influence behaviour, because the bonuses continued, but at the same time it was extremely successful at raising income. In fact, it was seven times more successful than was originally predicted. As I said, the original prediction was that it would to reap £500 million, but £3.5 billion was gained.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the levy was designed to change the behaviour of bankers, it has failed? Barclays, for example, paid more than £110 million to five of its top bankers.
John McDonnell
I agree with my hon. Friend, but I will come to that point later. The way in which the banks have continued their profligate distribution of bonuses looks like them cocking a snook at the Government and the level at which the levy has been set.
When the Chancellor appeared before the Treasury Committee, he advanced two arguments on how the levy was constructed. First, he argued that the levy was based on the price of the insurance that the Government and the taxpayer now implicitly offer for the wholesale funding of the banks; the levy is therefore a tax on the wholesale funding of banks’ operations. However, a calculation of the appropriate insurance for that scale of banking insurance, which could surely be done, would show that that sum is significantly more than the current bank levy proposal would raise.
The Chancellor’s second argument was that the levy was in the interests of equity: the banking sector, as well as the rest of us, should make a contribution to resolving the economic crisis. However, the amount that the bankers are being asked to provide to help to tackle the crisis that they created is piffling in comparison with the damage caused to our wider society, and minute in comparison with the burden that is being carried by others in terms of job losses and services cuts. Whole communities now face significant suffering and deprivation.
The Chancellor himself admitted that the targeted revenue sum was “relatively small” because, he argued, it balanced fairness with competitiveness, yet no study has been published and no evidence has been produced on the impact on banking competitiveness of varying the levy. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I want to know what independent assessments have been made of the balance between fairness and competitiveness and how the calculation was arrived at. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), who said that the measure throws the Government’s commitment to tax simplicity out the window. The taxation system on this issue is now more complex than any other point of taxation in the tax book, so I endorse the questions about how HMRC, with its current staffing cuts, can cope with the implementation of the levy. I would also welcome the Government publishing the consultation on the assessment of the amount of tax take from the proposed levy, because it looks like consultation was either non-existent or fairly minimal.
The amendment would require the report to consider
“the adequacy of the bank levy in the context of other reforms”.
Our understanding is that the levy was set to assist the implementation of the Merlin agreement and to ensure that the banks had a lending strategy to help get the economy moving and out of recession. As others have said, the levy must be set so as to ensure a continued influence on banks’ behaviour in relation to remuneration and bonuses. While promoting the bank levy, the Prime Minister and Chancellor exhorted bankers to show restraint. Is the levy set at the right level to ensure that the other reforms linked to it are completed and adhered to?
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The evidence of our eyes and ears of the relationship in recent months between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and the bankers is that there has been one word from the Chancellor and another word from the Prime Minister, and the banks have continued to do exactly what they want.
John McDonnell
That is exactly my point. It might be that the levy is being set in relation to other banking reforms, particularly those on bonuses and remuneration, but not only have we seen the complete disregard of the Chancellor’s and Prime Minister’s exhortations, with bonuses continuing at a very high level, but we have seen, as another Member said, a diversion into other forms of remuneration and salary increases. That is almost an abuse of the system as set out in the Government’s proposals.
If the debate is about the adequacy of the levy, and in view of the fact that in spite of the Government having set down a marker in the proposals, bonuses have continued and remuneration has increased, can the Government not support the amendment? If the review reported at least by December—I would prefer the autumn—we could consider increasing the levy to ensure adherence to the wider banking reform proposals the Government want implemented. It is clear from the evidence produced today that the banks need a continuing threat—a sword of Damocles—hanging over their heads, if we are to get any change in the bonuses and remuneration that are so offensive to all our constituents suffering in the recession.
It might be that the levy was set so that the Merlin agreement could become fully operable and lending might start in earnest again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East noted, however, so far all the indications are that the revival of lending has not taken place. The Government’s proposals therefore warrant a review at the earliest stage, because even now, while they are still being implemented, they are not working. The evidence for that is all around us. It is clear now—this is why the review is so important—that the levy has become almost irrelevant to the real issues of capitalisation and regulation.
Mr Love
I agree with my hon. Friend about the review’s importance. On the one side, bankers are telling us that they are lending money and that money is available to lend; on the other side, we have small business organisations united in saying not only that money is not available, but that the terms on which it would be made available are so onerous as to make it impossible for them to take out a loan. The review could resolve who is right and who is wrong.
John McDonnell
The review would certainly test the adequacy of the levy as an instrument for influencing banks’ behaviour, which I believe is its purpose. However, the problem is not just the lack of lending; it is the continuing profiteering in the mainstream banking system—let alone the shadow banking system that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has been so assiduous in exposing. In the main Budget debate, I highlighted some of the interest charges being made. A report by Moneyfacts last August showed that the profit margins enjoyed by the banks on fixed-rate deals are the highest since 1988, and that the average interest rate on personal loans was 12.6%, which at 12.1% over the base rate is an all-time high. So far, the threat of the levy has done absolutely nothing to change banks’ behaviour in any aspect, whether remuneration, bonuses or lending. We are in danger of allowing the banks not merely to return to business as normal, but to get even worse. Even those in public ownership are out of public control. I find that extraordinary.
The review must take place in the context of other attempts, such as the Basel discussions, to restrain or control banks’ behaviour. Basel II seems to let the banks off the hook on a range of issues, from remuneration to capital ratios. The levy is meant to come in the context of the reforms the Government are engaging in nationally and internationally, but the Financial Times reported today that discussions about global standards on bank lending risks are not moving towards an agreement, so now we are not even moving forward in capital ratio discussions.
We need to consider the levy in the context of the banks’ role overall and the anger in our wider communities. Many believe—rightly—that the banks played the key role in creating the recession, and now, if we are not careful, by not lending or engaging in economic growth, they will play a role if not in tipping the economy into a double-dip recession, at least in leaving the economy to scrape along the bottom of economic activity. I have referred before to the words of Graham Turner, from the Left Economics Advisory Panel. He works in the City and is an expert on what happened in Japan. We face the prospect of a long, low-level, depressed, deflationary spiral if we do not use the levy to stimulate the banks into playing a responsible role within our economy.
We will come out of recession only through an astute mix of fiscal and monetary policy. In the 1930s—this is the whole point about Keynes—it was about not just deficit funding and quantitative easing, but more importantly banking reform. Banking reform is one element of the strategy that any Government must adopt to take us out of recession, and the banking levy is one of the few tools and weapons at our disposal that can force through banking reform. So far, the threat of the banking levy has failed to engage even those banks that are in public ownership in a proper discussion about banking reform and the role that they will have to play in tackling the recession and encouraging economic activity.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right to refer to the response of hauliers to the previous Government’s policy.
The hon. Member for York Central called the action that the Government have taken for hauliers in the Budget “slight”. Actually, the average haulier will benefit by approximately £1,700 in 2010-11 as a result of those measures compared with what they would otherwise have faced. I also draw his attention to the remaining part of the package for motorists, which includes freezing vehicle excise duty on HGVs, providing further help to hauliers. The package is even broader than that, because for motorists who are required to use their own vehicle for work, the approved mileage allowance payments rate, which had not been increased by the previous Government since 2002, was increased from 40p to 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles. An average AMAPs user claiming for 2,500 miles a year will benefit by £125 a year.
John McDonnell
In the Budget statement, the Government informed us that they were submitting a derogation request to the European Union for the rural fuel duty rebate pilot scheme. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told us that permission would be received over the next few months. Will the Economic Secretary inform us of whether permission has been received? Given the representations that have been made today for an expansion to other regions, is that not something that should be considered as part of a review as a matter of urgency?
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the derogation is to carry out a pilot to look at how we can support rural areas with a fuel duty discount. He is right to point out that we have submitted a formal request to the European Commission, and we wait to hear its response. I assure him that we got on with that derogation request, just as we said we would.
If I may, I will make progress on the issues that have been raised by hon. Members.
Amendment of the Law
John McDonnell Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I listened to the Budget debate yesterday as well as today, and I want to take up some of the points raised in it. I clearly come from a different economic school from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)—and I probably come from a different one from his erstwhile colleague the shadow Chancellor as well!
The premise of the debate so far has been that as a result of profligate public expenditure by the last Government, we have an economic crisis on our hands. The conclusion is that we can solve the deficit largely by cutting public expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is no longer in his place, referred to various Treasury charts, and I have to say that one that was published a short while ago demonstrates that the profligate expenditure argument is simply not true.
Let us consider the recent Treasury chart about public spending under the last Government and previous Governments as a percentage of gross domestic product. It shows that public expenditure under the last Government was, in fact, less than it was at the height of Thatcherism and under John Major’s period in office. I shall circulate this chart to Members. I know this is true because for many of the years the last Labour Government were in office, I was attacking them for not spending enough and for poor expenditure. I fully agree with the criticisms made of the private finance initiative; I opposed every PFI scheme that was proposed.
If we look at the chart to find out when expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product rose dramatically, we discover that it was, as the shadow Chancellor said, only when the economic crisis hit and we had to pump out the quantitative easing into the economy. In my view, the deficit occurred as a result of the failure to match expenditure with tax justice. We had large levels of tax evasion and avoidance and, in addition, we failed to develop a whole range of other tax bases within the economy. Genuine criticisms can be made of over-dependence on the financial sector and the failure to develop the manufacturing sector during that period.
What do we do now? It is not all about cutting expenditure. In yesterday’s debate, reference was made to the crisis of the 1930s and the lessons that can be learned from it. It is worth Members returning to J.K. Galbraith, who I believe wrote the best book on the crisis, “The Great Crash 1929”. What Galbraith says is that although economic structures can be put in place, what will defend us most against a repeat of the crisis is memory. We seem to forget that the cause of that crisis was the cause of this crisis—speculation by the banks and other speculators and, yes, a Government who failed to regulate. I have to say, however, that when a number of Members called for bank regulation in this House, there was an element of quietude on all sides. I remember fighting for four years, in almost a solitary capacity, to secure the passage of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill at a time when we were pressing for regulation.
One of the lessons of the 1930s is that the one thing we should not do in a recession is cut public expenditure, because that will turn a recession into a depression. However, it is exactly what the Government seem to be doing. At present 2.5 million people are unemployed, 1 million young people are unemployed, according to recent statistics 1.7 million people are in voluntary and part-time employment, and the £80 billion cuts proposed by the Government will make at least another 1.2 million people unemployed.
What I am really anxious about, however, and what we should all be anxious about, are the cuts in capital expenditure. We are told that there will be a 4% cut next year and a 6% cut in the year after that, and that local government capital expenditure is to be cut by 30%—possibly more, according to the Red Book. I believe that if that element of demand is removed from the economy, we will experience either a deflationary spiral or the worst of all worlds, stagflation: increasing inflation along with stagnation in the real economy. I do not believe that there will be a double dip. My fear is that we will become like Japan, where asset values are falling, and will scrape along the bottom of economic activity for perhaps a decade.
People ask what the alternative is. I have mentioned the lessons of the 1930s, and Keynes’s name has been bandied about many times today. It is true that Keynes concentrated on the bond market, but one of the main lessons to be learned from him is that the key issue is unemployment. I think we should be declaring, across parties, that our objective must be the return of full employment, which appears no longer to be cited as a policy objective. As has already been pointed out, the most effective way of restoring investment is through capital investment—the development of capital programmes in housing, renewable energy and transport. I ask Members to look at the green new deal and to examine the “One Million Climate Jobs” booklet produced by trade unions including the Public and Commercial Services Union, which sets out a capital investment programme that could get people back to work.
How would that be paid for? Let me list just a few short-term measures. I am very pleased that windfall taxes have come back into fashion, and I commend the Government for that, but I do not think that the windfall taxes on the banks go nearly far enough. The lending rates on personal loans in particular are exploitative and extortionate in the markets. I also think that if we are to consider organisations that have profiteered during the recession, we should consider the supermarkets. Commodity inflation is about 3%, but they have increased prices by 6% and above, and they have been profiteering for a number of years.
I think that a windfall tax on energy is appropriate. The current profits of British Gas average 24%, and Ofgem has reported an average profit margin of 38% per customer since last November. That is profiteering during a recession. Some economists have suggested that a windfall tax in those three areas would produce up to £10 billion to get people back to work.
Let me make clear, however, as I did under the last Government, what should happen in the longer term if we are to avoid future deficits. Yes, it is about careful expenditure and it is about having confidence in local and regional decision making, but it is also about achieving a fair and just tax system that will fund our expenditure. First, we must tackle tax evasion and avoidance. What has been done about that by past Governments and by the present Government is trivial. According to Richard Murphy and John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network, £150 billion a year is potentially available to us. Secondly, we need a financial transaction tax. We have been talking about a Robin Hood tax for too long, and we should now be implementing it. Thirdly, I think we should deal with land speculation. I believe that now is the time for land value taxation. If we tax the wealth in land, we will encourage development rather than preventing it.
On Saturday, there is to be a “march for the alternative”. I expect at least half a million people to march in the streets against the cuts, and I want them to march for a just alternative. I believe that one of the alternatives they will expect us to implement in the House is a fair taxation system allowing investment in public services so that we can all share in that wealth.
HM Revenue and Customs
John McDonnell Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on her creativity in using an estimates debate to get so many constituency cases addressed. Following her critique of HMRC, I say to her that the buck stops here in Parliament.
I am not a member of the honourable fellowship of the Public Accounts Committee or the Treasury Committee. I was a member of a Select Committee back in 1997, I believe, when the Labour Whips, in a fleeting moment of jocularity, put me on the Deregulation Committee. I sought to change it to the Reregulation Committee, and we parted company soon after. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) was in the Whips Office at that time, but I do not bear grudges.
I attended the debate on the legislation that founded HMRC. The House was relatively empty, and I believe that I was one of the few Members who tabled amendments on Report. At that time, a number of us were concerned about whether the merger was appropriate. We were also concerned about a trend that started immediately when the merger happened, when 3,000 job cuts were announced. Soon after that, 12,000 more were announced. I do not know of any organisation—public or private—that could have survived the treatment that HMRC received in recent years, including recent months.
When the merger happened, there were 104,000 staff. Since then, there have been 30,000 job cuts. We are now down to 75,000 staff. The £2 billion cuts as part of the comprehensive spending review amount to another 11,500 job cuts. I appreciate that the Government have put back £917 million to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, but cutting £2 billion and putting £900 million back seems like a ricochet policy rather than a planned approach to reform, as many Members have suggested.
I want to follow on from the points that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) made. I chair the parliamentary PCS trade union group, an informal group of Members of all political parties. It enables us to meet the trade unionists who represent HMRC staff—the tax inspectors. Reference has been made to the briefings that have been given in recent months. That has educated us about the role that the staff play and what they have had to endure. It is not just the job cuts; 200 local tax offices have also been cut. We have now been told that there is a radical reduction in the opening hours of the walk-in tax inquiry centres. The point was made that, in some parts of the country, there are no local tax offices and vast gaps. The worst example is Wick in Scotland, where there is nothing in the vicinity and nowhere to transfer the redundant staff to ensure that they are retained in the service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made the point that for every tax official appointed, £685,000 is gained in tax income that is generated.
Ian Swales
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a walk-in centre that is open only a couple of days a week and staffed by somebody who knows nothing about tax, and whose main role is to note details or direct people to telephones, is not a good walk-in centre?
John McDonnell
Yes. In recent years and from the time of the initial legislation, there has been almost a Dutch auction between Front Benchers competing to see who could cut more jobs from HMRC. We tried to point that out. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East gave a good example of how not to do a tax return. Some people need a face-to-face discussion about their tax affairs and that cannot be done through a call-centre mentality.
Some Members have pointed out that the evidence on call centres is fairly appalling. The pressure on call centres has mounted. Let me give some statistics for the record. Calls were up 20% from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Call attempts were up 100% from 2009-2010 to 2010-11. Engaged and busy tones played were up from seven to 35 minutes. One can see why that tune—“Greensleeves” or whatever it is—pushes some people right over the edge if they have to listen to it for 35 minutes. The current contact directorate performance prediction for 2010-11 is that only 40% to 50% of call attempts will be answered.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Together with the cuts in staffing, which have put extra pressure on staff, and de-professionalisation, will my hon. Friend mention the relatively low pay with which many tax office staff have to cope?
John McDonnell
We once prided ourselves on an effective and efficient tax delivery service through tax collection, and the job of tax inspector was one to which people aspired. We have undermined that through the de-professionalisation of the service, the way in which staff are treated and pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has direct experience, having met large numbers of his constituents who work in that tax office. The problem is not just the numbers of staff or how some of the services have been downgraded; it is the fact that the redundancy payments of people who are being laid off as a result of the recent cuts are being cut by up to two thirds. In addition, their pensions are now threatened by the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index.
Of course, that spells disaster for many people in planning their careers and their futures, so it is no wonder that the statistics on morale are so appalling—and morale is getting worse, not better. Staff were asked whether the changes were usually for the better, but fewer than one in 10 answered yes, meaning that they hold out no hope for the future.
Staff have been treated appallingly by management over a period too. Some Members were in the House when we debated the introduction of the lean system to HMRC, which was lifted straight from the Toyota car factories. That system produced the first strike in the history of HMRC in Scotland, because of how staff felt they were being treated. Hon. Members have learned that members of staff describe the imposition of the new attendance management system as draconian. One said that HMRC management seems to be
“more interested in finding ways to justify dismissing staff to get the numbers down as this is cheaper than redundancy rather than staff welfare and delivery of good customer service.”
The fact that professional staff have those sorts of opinions is an indication that something is wrong.
Staff are also concerned about elements of privatisation, such as the increasing role of private debt collection agencies in pursuing tax debts of under £10,000, and the conduct of private companies that do not have the expertise that HMRC has developed over the years in door-to-door collection. There are real concerns about not only office closures but the disbanding of whole HMRC business streams, which is reducing expertise and damaging service delivery.
Kelvin Hopkins
One feature of privatisation and the call centre culture is that it destroys the public service ethos. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) said earlier, the public service ethos is vital in an important job such as tax collection.
John McDonnell
I fully agree, and we have painted a picture this afternoon of the impact of a combination of job reductions, cuts in redundancy pay and the threats of cuts to pensions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East described as a perfect storm. The message from those on the front line of tax collection is that HMRC is in a perilous situation. I hope from here on in that those voices will be heard and that we will consider a more systematic approach to HMRC reform.
Hon. Members have been told that access to face-to-face inquiry services has been significantly reduced, which is extremely worrying. Let me put on record what a number of tax inspectors have said about that. They say:
“Those offices that remain open”
after the 200 closures
“are having their enquiry centre opening hours significantly reduced. In some case these offices are due to be opened for only two or three days”—
maximum—
“rather than the five days a week they currently open for.”
There is also concern about the disbanding of the complex personal return team in March 2009. Many thousands of the top UK taxpayers no longer have the services of a dedicated case owner and customer relationship manager. Thirty-five thousand taxpayers whose tax affairs were handled by that dedicated team—a highly trained, professional team—are now dealt with in the wider HMRC network. There is a view that the skills are therefore not available or not dedicated in the most effective way to increase tax revenues.
In conclusion, I have heard figures bandied about for how much tax is avoided or evaded, and therefore should be collected. They range from the internal estimate of £46 billion up to £120 billion. A number of us have worked with Richard Murphy and John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network over the past five to eight years to try to highlight the issue. Until recently it was not taken up or reported particularly effectively by the media, so I pay tribute to UK Uncut—a group of individuals who have come together spontaneously, taken information from the tax justice campaign and mobilised direct action, which, whatever Members think of it, has been incredibly effective in raising the issue up the political agenda. As a result of campaigning by the Tax Justice Network, UK Uncut and others, and as people are experiencing the cuts and moving from abstraction to reality in their communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East said, they are now asking the question: why are we not collecting this tax? It is due not just to a lack of political will—although there is a tax reform issue that needs to be addressed—but to the way in which we have treated HMRC over the years, undermining its ability to collect those taxes.
Charlie Elphicke
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that everyone should pay their fair share of tax, but I strongly disagree with—indeed, I would condemn—any endorsement in this place of direct action that has the effect of shutting down businesses for a day, at a time when jobs and money are hard enough to come by for people in this country because of the Labour party’s recession.
John McDonnell
Jobs would be more protected if companies and rich people paid their taxes. If there is £120 billion out there that should be paid, then it should be paid, and if it takes direct action to force action on that, I support that direct action. Indeed, I have participated in it and will do so in future.
Now that the issue has become so pertinent to our constituents, to the country’s financial affairs and to trying to tackle the deficit, my view is that if we continue to hamstring HMRC in the way that it has been since 2005, we will undermine its ability to operate effectively. If we continue with the job cuts experienced in recent years, and with those as a result of the comprehensive spending review, we will destroy that public service ethos, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, undermining the organisation that we have been so proud of over the past two centuries for its effectiveness in ensuring a fair and just taxation system. I urge the Minister to put in place a consultative process, consulting the unions and the staff on a reform programme for HMRC, so that it can once again do its job effectively.
Banking
John McDonnell Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right, which is good as he is my local MP. One of the weaknesses in the British economy over recent years has been that small and medium-sized businesses have not had access to venture capital and other sources of funding, as they have had in countries such as the United States and Germany, so that they can become larger companies. The regional business growth fund that I have spoken about will provide more access to such funding. I will also return to this issue in the Budget.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I believe that I was the first MP to raise the issue of bankers’ bonuses in this House five years ago, and I was critical of the previous Government. I say to the Chancellor directly that referring pay to remuneration committees, which is a largely toothless and ineffective rubber-stamping exercise, and allowing bankers at RBS to convert their shares into cash bonuses within two years will not assuage the anger of the British people.
Mr Osborne
First, I respect the hon. Gentleman’s consistency on this issue. Secondly, I said explicitly that I did not think that the anger would disappear any time soon; memories will be long of what has gone wrong in recent years. It will help that bank boards will at least be aware of the some of the salaries that are being paid in their organisations, which they simply were not under the previous regime. That is one thing that clearly went wrong at the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Finance Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 11, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
‘(2) Subsection (1) shall not have effect unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a report on the extent of avoidance and evasion of corporation tax and on the measures he proposes to take to ensure the payment of tax which is due.’.
I almost feel like apologising for returning to the issue of tax evasion and tax avoidance, which I have pursued for a number of years since the debate that we had about the merger of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to form Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The amendment is fairly straightforward in seeking that a report be prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before corporation tax and capital gains tax measures are agreed by the House. I will not repeat myself in relation to amendment 12 to clause 2, although I will move amendment 12 formally. We have argued consistently about how to tackle evasion and avoidance and the investment required to do so.
Let me explain the rationale behind the amendment. I listened to the Second Reading debate into the early hours, including the discussions about Randalls of Uxbridge, which were enlightening at that point in time—
John McDonnell
As my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, the discussions were refreshing, to say the least. I think there is another sale on at the moment.
The debate was about how to resolve the deficit that has arisen as a result of the credit crunch and the economic crisis that we face. Clearly, the division was around the level of reductions in public expenditure required and the time scale for their implementation. There was fierce debate about the level of public expenditure decreases and their implications for jobs losses, cuts in services and the impact on communities.
What was absent from the debate was a discussion of increasing tax revenues as an alternative to cuts. Everyone appreciated that the deficit needs to be reduced. There was some agreement, even across Benches, on some cuts, particularly with regard to ID cards and, perhaps, Trident. With regard to cuts in education and welfare benefits, however, there were strong differences. We need to look again at tax avoidance and evasion. There has been confusion about definitions in previous debates. Tax evasion is defined closely as the illegal non-payment or under-payment of taxes, usually resulting from the making of false declarations, or from no declarations of taxes to tax authorities, and can result in legal penalties. Tax avoidance is seeking to minimise a tax bill without deliberate deception, but contrary to the spirit of the law.
John McDonnell
The difference is clear with regard to legality and illegality. The technical implementation of tax legislation can be complex, so people can misunderstand which side of the fence they fall. During earlier debates in the House, the Denis Healey quote was cited that the difference is a prison wall. The implementation of measures to tackle tax evasion in particular is critical to the sound management of public finances and, obviously, to probity in the management of tax resources.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that avoidance and evasion are the same to the extent that, in the context of both, it will take a motivated and full work force at HMRC to deliver the benefits that the Government supposedly seek?
John McDonnell
I agree wholeheartedly. I shall say more about that shortly, because it is one of the issues that we raised—I think—four years ago at the time of the merger of the departments. We hoped at that stage for a more detailed report on personnel management and the number of staff who would be employed to deal with tax evasion in particular.
The fact that Her Majesty’s Treasury does not distinguish between evasion and avoidance in its global figures suggests that the Treasury itself finds the distinction difficult to define. I tried to find a clear Treasury quantification of what is generally described as the tax gap in order to draft an amendment that would have some purchase in the real world, especially the world of Treasury practice.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I am interested in the discussion of avoidance and evasion, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that neither problem has been improved by his own party’s complication of the tax rules, to the extent that ordinary people require a professional to help them to interpret those rules?
John McDonnell
Complication is certainly an issue. That is partly why I want the Chancellor to report to the House on the measures that will be used to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. We need a simplification of the process, but we also need to know how many staff the Government will employ for collection purposes.
Mr Love
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. Does he agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the terms of the Budget are likely to make the tax system more complicated, rather than introducing the simplicity that the Government claim is one of the objectives of their Budget?
John McDonnell
Let me say as objectively as I can that I have not yet seen a Budget that simplified the taxation system, and I have been here for 13 years. I live in hope, which is why my amendment requests a further report that might indicate the path that the Government intend to take. I am merely a humble seeker for truth in this matter, as always.
I investigated various sources in my search for estimates of the tax gap. The latest HMRC estimate that I could find was £40 billion, but there is an element of uncertainty reflected in a reported memorandum circulated to staff in HMRC and the wider Treasury, asking people to come up with ideas for identifying and calculating the gap.
The HMRC estimate has been challenged by others. I chair a group called the Left Economics Advisory Panel, which brings together a number of Left economists including some who have been working with the Tax Justice Campaign. Over the years many Members will have worked with Richard Murphy and John Christensen, who are held in respect across parties because of the work they have undertaken in this sphere, and the advice that they have given to the Treasury and other organisations for a number of years. According to their estimate over the past year, the tax gap could be anything between £70 billion and £120 billion.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
If the gap is so enormous, can the hon. Gentleman explain why 13 years of Labour government did not close it?
John McDonnell
I can only say that that is one of the reasons why I have raised the issue so consistently. I hope that some Government will address it, and will do so effectively. It is also why I have sought to amend the Bill in a consensual way. All I am asking is for the Treasury to produce a report setting out our best current estimate of the extent of avoidance and evasion, and to propose measures that the Government could take. That would be a way for the Government to demonstrate that they are taking the issue seriously and tackling it.
There have been other estimates of the tax gap that go beyond that of Richard Murphy, some of which are as high as £150 billion a year. Interestingly in respect of the Treasury’s £40 billion figure, it estimated in a table it published earlier this year that corporation tax accounted for 16% of its tax gap and that capital gains tax along with national insurance contributions and so forth accounted for 6%, so the taxes this particular amendment addresses are significant contributors to the tax gap.
I fear that unless this issue is addressed we will continue to have a sterile debate in the House about cuts in public services, whereas if we tackled the tax gap we would avoid a significant amount of the public service cuts that will impact upon all our communities. I therefore urge that we have a serious debate and that the Treasury produces a report quantifying more exactly the levels of tax avoidance and tax evasion, and that we then look at possible measures—including, I agree, on simplification. Issues to do with what resources we apply to tackling tax evasion and avoidance are also of relevance, however, and that comes down to staffing.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Should we not recognise that tax avoidance and tax evasion are two very different things, and that although we can make a rational guess as to the extent of the former, tax evasion that is successful is not detected at all and therefore any estimate of it must be highly speculative?
John McDonnell
I fully concur, which is why I think that HMRC must apply a lot more resources to tackling quantification. The estimates I have been given range widely from the £40 billion from the Treasury for both avoidance and evasion—its figures do not distinguish between them—to the £25 billion from the TUC solely for tax avoidance, to the higher estimates of anything between £70 billion and £150 billion for both evasion and avoidance. I know that Richard Murphy in particular has focused on evasion, which could account for anything between 40% and 60% of the budget deficit—the structural deficit as well—that this House has recently been debating, and dividing on almost unnecessarily it seems to me.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman both on raising the issue and on the manner in which he is doing so. He has made it clear that he has raised it under two Governments. Putting aside the tribal aspects of the debate, I agree that we need to bear down on this issue, and I have asked parliamentary questions on evasion and avoidance that are due for answer today. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is to be hoped that once we understand a great deal more about this issue, we will be able to close the loopholes, and address other issues such as where Treasury officials go and work after they leave the Treasury?
John McDonnell
I fully agree.
I have not included any reference to VAT, which is one of the largest areas of tax evasion and avoidance. Interestingly, it appears from the responses we have had over the years from the Treasury that it uses different methodologies to calculate the different forms of evasion and avoidance for particular taxes. I find that extremely confusing.
The amendment has been described as not tribalist. Well, I am a tribalist, but I am trying not to be on this issue; instead, I am being as consensus-seeking as I can be. Even though I come from a class-based politics, I am trying to come at this from a straightforward administrative perspective, asking how we can arrive at a situation in which HMRC will report to the House—to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—on the extent of evasion and avoidance and the measures that are going to be pursued. The reason why I am making a link to the changes in tax measures is that I want there to be a time limit, so that we get a report back to the House; otherwise, this situation will continue year after year.
This issue does relate to that of staffing, which I raised with the previous Government and am raising with this one. I chair the cross-party PCS trade union group in Parliament, which regularly meets PCS members who work in HMRC and who are tax inspectors. It is clear that they have performed an excellent service to our country over the years, and their productivity has been increasing year on year. However, over the past three years job cuts totalling 12,000 within HMRC have been announced that specifically affect staff involved in tax generation. At a time when we are desperately trying to tackle the deficit through measures other than reductions in public expenditure and cuts in public services, we could do that by tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance. However, at the same time, we have the prospect of another 12,000 jobs being lost within HMRC.
Mr Redwood
If a constituent of the hon. Gentleman’s had a deposit in a savings product that was paying interest, on which they were paying tax, and they switched that into a tax-free national savings product, would that be tax avoidance or sensible investment?
John McDonnell
That is an interesting point. Tax compliance should be a duty in law, so there should be a requirement on us all to pay our appropriate level of tax. Tax planning is perfectly consistent within the law and is appropriate for individuals and organisations in order to ensure that they pay the appropriate tax. However, such devices should not be used to avoid paying the rightful level of tax and certainly should not be used for the purposes of tax evasion, which is the illegal avoidance of tax.
As I was saying, my concern is that, just when we need staff to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, we are faced with the previous Government’s plan for a further 12,000 job cuts within HMRC. I urge the new Government to review the matter and to look again at the staffing level that will be required if we are seriously to address tax evasion and avoidance. That is another reason why my amendment calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before us a report that sets out the measures he proposes to take
“to ensure the payment of tax which is due”.
In devising those measures, appropriate discussions will need to take place about the level of staffing and the qualifications and abilities required of such staff. Such factors will militate against the scale of job cuts that have taken place.
On another issue, but one that has certainly been close to the hearts of several Members over the past two years, such measures will need to take into account not just staffing levels but staff location. The closure in recent times of local tax offices has reduced HMRC’s ability to respond to tax evasion and tax avoidance on the basis of local knowledge, and to assist local companies and individuals in proper tax planning so that they can comply with the law. I request that any report that the Chancellor introduces deal with the implications of the closure of local tax offices and, therefore, the appropriate location of the staff themselves.
I have tabled two amendments, the first of which, amendment 11, deals with corporation tax.
Mr Love
Does my hon. Friend agree that any such report dealing with HMRC must also deal with the difficulties that arose on the amalgamation of Revenue and Customs because of the very different cultures within those organisations? We really must address those difficulties, which still reverberate around the organisation, even at this late stage.
John McDonnell
I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. I accept that there have been issues relating to a new department settling down over time, but I want to pay tribute to the staff involved for the excellent job they have done in the set-up of the new organisation, for the flexible way they have worked and for the co-operation that has worked across past agencies as they have come together. I accept that that might be an issue and it could be referred to.
I will not repeat the same speech when we deal with amendment 12.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
May I say that there seems to be a big confusion between tax evasion and tax avoidance? The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to “avoidance and evasion” and treating them in almost exactly the same way. Clearly one of them, avoidance, is entirely legitimate—it is a basic human instinct for someone to try to hold on to more of their own money, which they have earned through their hard work—whereas the other, evasion, is an illegal activity. Would he not do well to focus on what might be the issue, rather than trying to confuse it?
John McDonnell
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. My amendment tackles tax evasion, which is clearly an illegal activity, but we need to address a wider issue that goes beyond the normal tax planning: tax avoidance beyond the spirit of the law. In previous debates, we have tried to insert into the tax laws of this country a general duty of tax compliance, which exists in other countries. Such an approach puts an onus—as a duty in law—on the individual to comply and to try to emphasise that duty, rather than to look for every possible means to avoid tax. There is a gradation in these matters, but I tackle both these things because they are both legitimate concerns in wider society and will become increasingly pressing ones as individuals experience the public expenditure cuts that will take place as we seek to tackle the deficit.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making his case extremely well, but surely he should be pushing at an open door, given that the Red Book itself talks about changes
“to prevent avoidance of corporation tax using accounting ‘derecognition’ rules”.
It also discusses tax avoidance involving “the creation” of certain things “for corporate investors”, and mentions alternative investment funds, financial securities, inheritance tax on trusts and so on. There is also the possibility of a general anti-avoidance rule, as this is being considered informally by this Government as we speak.
John McDonnell
That is why I was hoping my amendment would achieve consensus in this House, although that might be a first for me. I was hoping that it went with the flow of Government policy, as well as with past Government policy, if not with past practice under successive Governments. A number of practices of tax avoidance clearly incur public opprobrium. The hon. Gentleman has cited a number that are listed in the Red Book, but there are others. These are seen as instances where people are not doing the right thing within the spirit of the law, which is why, no matter how difficult it can be at times, we can identify practices that fall within either tax evasion or tax avoidance by the practical response from the community.
This is an issue whose time has come, particularly because of the current financial climate. There is clearly a concern among Members in all parts of the House about tax evasion and tax avoidance, and there will increasingly be concern about it in the wider community. Therefore, my simply asking for the Treasury to produce a report before this latest round of taxes are implemented—this would give an element of timetabling and immediacy to the proposals that will be introduced by the Treasury—is nothing but helpful and will be seen in the wider community as actually getting the Treasury to examine this issue with some seriousness in a way that may not have been happening under previous Administrations of all political parties. I cannot see how anybody could vote or argue against this, but I shall sit down and wait for the argument to come.
Mr Redwood
It would clearly be a false economy to cut back on the number of staff needed to tackle serious cases of tax evasion; I do not think anybody wants to do that, and I certainly would not recommend it to Front Benchers. It would also be wrong, however, to exempt Revenue and Customs from pressure to improve efficiency and to do more with less at a time of enormous strictures on public spending. I hope that there will be ways to accommodate the hon. Gentleman’s wish for us still to have Revenue and Customs pursuing tax evasion and our coming back to legislate on tax avoidance that it thinks is going too far, as we have under past Conservative and Labour Governments, and that that will be done efficiently and effectively in the way that we wish to see.
John McDonnell
To follow up on the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), are there any measures that the right hon. Gentleman would consider tax avoidance that should be brought within the purview of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, such as the large-scale offshoring mechanisms that corporations use to avoid tax? All that the amendment asks is for a report to be made about the measures that the Government will take on such issues.
Mr Redwood
I do not necessarily disagree about the need for us to consider another report on tax avoidance and evasion, but I am trying to set some of the parameters for that report and the framework of the debate. This is an opportunity to discuss why the matter is difficult, and why past Governments have not lived up to the hon. Gentleman’s expectations. I have no problem with having a report, although I do not want to link it to the particular corporation tax rate in clause 1, as his amendment would.
John McDonnell
I am grateful for that response. Successive Governments have pragmatically examined the latest tax avoidance mechanisms and then sought to work through them systematically to address them. The amendment is intended simply to bring forward a report on those mechanisms so that the House can have more oversight of that process.
Mr Redwood
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am all in favour of more oversight by this House, and the more informed a debate we can have about this and other issues the better. Public debate in Britain has been stifled in recent years for all sorts of political reasons that we need not go into. It is better if we can bring such debates out into the open, but we need collectively to think through what avoidance is and what evasion is. If we do not know that, we cannot hope to guess its scale or optimise our measures for dealing with the features of it that we do not like. I am trying to deal with avoidance, on which I believe there is more scope for disagreement than on evasion, which we are all against.
I return to the point that some people’s avoidance is a bad practice and other people’s is common sense. Let us take another example of a matter on which the Government encourage avoidance. I gave one from personal tax, but we ought to be concentrating on corporation tax. The previous Labour Government were keen to encourage avoidance of corporation tax because they wanted companies to invest—a perfectly worthy aim. They said to companies, “If you invest more than you otherwise would do, that is an allowance against your corporation tax so that you will be able to avoid some tax in order to invest more.” One debate that the Committee will have is whether this Government are cracking down too much on investment avoidance by removing some of that allowance and giving everybody the benefit of a lower rate. I hope that Opposition Members will see that they are not as pure as they think they are on avoidance, and that there are certain types of avoidance that they see as a very good thing. It is a well-known feature of many tax structures to encourage avoidance in order to encourage good works or change conduct.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who brings me to my next point.
The Government see the distinction between tax avoidance and tax planning, but those lines can be blurred, and sometimes use of the terminology is not as accurate as it might be. For example, I quote the “Missing Billions” report, produced for the TUC, which, after setting out a series of numbers leading towards the estimate for corporation tax avoidance, states:
“Much may be due to legitimate tax planning, but by no means all is. Some, undoubtedly, is due to tax avoidance.”
That seems to me to suggest a slight blurring of the lines. Again, I am sure that I will be corrected in Mr Murphy’s blog if I am wrong, but there does appear to be some confusion.
I am not suggesting that tax avoidance and tax evasion do not matter. The £40 billion figure is significant. However, it is also true that we cannot pretend that if we just address this problem, the deficit will go away. Although it is always tempting for a new Minister in a new Government to attack everything that happened before, I must point out—not purely out of fondness for my predecessor, the right hon. Member for East Ham—that, in international terms, £40 billion is not too bad as a percentage of tax revenue raised.
HMRC does not do particularly badly. Indeed, it tends to lead the field in this respect. Nor has it deteriorated during a period in which it has incurred substantial job losses, as a number of Members have pointed out. I believe that it employed 97,000 people in 2005, and the most recent figure is 69,000. It is a question of deploying resources as effectively and efficiently as possible.
None the less, to the extent that it is possible to go further in reducing evasion and avoidance, the Government are keen to do so, and I have set out some of the ways in which we intend to do so. I can tell the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that we already assess the amount of tax lost through avoidance and evasion, and that we are committed to reduce those losses as much as possible. We will also continue to publish the tax gap figures as frequently as possible, to provide a focus for HMRC and to ensure that our debate is well informed.
I hope that what I have said gives some reassurance to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Let me also remind the shadow Minister that HMRC introduced a banking code of practice in 2009, and HMRC’s annual report will provide anonymised statistics on the number of banks that have adopted it. We believe that the code encourages banks not to enter into, or be party to, avoidance arrangements, but we will of course continue to monitor and review its operation.
John McDonnell
I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that information on the tax gap will continue to be published, but my amendment also deals with when it will be published, and asks for further information to be given on the measures that will be taken to tackle the problem.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman’s points have been noted. Today’s debate is the second on this matter in which I have taken part in my present post—the first was in Westminster Hall—and I am well aware that it is of considerable concern to Members on both sides of the House. It has also featured heavily in Treasury questions, which will take place again tomorrow. Who knows? There may be a question on this very subject then.
The hon. Gentleman is right to hold Ministers and HMRC to account in regard to how we seek to reduce the tax gap. The Government are taking the matter seriously, and, in the spirit of transparency in which we operate, we will provide as much information as we can so that our debate is as well informed as possible. In the light of that assurance, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that the amendment is not necessary and will withdraw it.
John McDonnell
I think that the debate has been helpful to Members on both sides of the Committee. An attempt has been made to get out of the trenches, and to engage in a wide-ranging discussion of how we can proceed in a pragmatic way. I believe that this will become one of the key issues that people will expect us to address as the economic crisis continues. If they see public expenditure cut so that their local schools are not refurbished, and if they see a tax on welfare benefits, they will expect us at least to maximise the revenue from the tax that people and organisations should be paying. Justice and fairness in the taxation system will become critically important to more and more people.
Some of the arguments that we have heard today have been very helpful, and at times they have been entertaining. I am fascinated by the concept that reducing taxation reduces evasion and avoidance: that is almost an argument for no taxation at all, although it may not gain much purchase in the House. We all accept the arguments about simplicity, but the problem with simplicity is that it makes loopholes possible, and we then need complexity to tackle the loopholes. It is a circular problem. However, it is a joint venture for us to try to ensure that the legislation that we draft is appropriately simple.
Kwasi Kwarteng
What was said was that simplicity aided the avoidance of loopholes, and that complexity led to more loopholes. The hon. Gentleman has just contradicted that.
John McDonnell
I was talking about what had been experienced in the past, but we can all sign up to the pious statement that we will achieve as much simplicity as possible. I merely say on the basis of practical experience in the House that, unfortunately, when we have sought simplicity, people have argued for further complexity to tackle the loopholes. However, we will all aim for simplicity, and the onus is on us to try to draft legislation in a way that achieves it.
I welcomed the Minister’s statement about the continuation of, and consultation on, the commitment to the anti-avoidance rule, but I hoped that at some stage a future report from Government would enable us to engage in a wider debate on how we could install in legislation the duty to comply more simply and effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) pointed out, the issue that arises time and again is the ingenious use of devices to avoid the spirit of the law. In other contexts, we draft legislation in such a way that when a device appears it can be seen to be a device, which is patently against the spirit of the legislation and whose effect can therefore be outlawed. I also welcomed the wider debate on the anti-avoidance principle to be installed in legislation.
This has been a helpful debate. I leave the Minister to the savagery of Richard Murphy’s blog: I am sure that Mr Murphy will respond to each of the points that he raised. Let me make this point, however: whether the tax gap is £40 billion or £120 billion, when people out there are experiencing cuts in public services and reductions in their pensions and are having to work for longer, they will expect us to collect those taxes. The subtle distinctions between evasion and avoidance will be lost on them. They will expect the House of Commons to produce legislation ensuring that HMRC is sufficiently staffed and sufficiently resourced to bring in the tax, and to deal with the significant part of the deficit that we have identified in the past few weeks.
On the basis of the assurances that we have had from both Front Benches of co-operative working on this issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 21, page 1, line 6, at end add—
‘(2) The main rate of corporation tax for financial year 2011 will remain at 28 per cent. on the profits of banking institutions as defined by section 2 of the Banking Act 2009.’.
John McDonnell
Following on from my right hon. Friend’s exposition, I want to speak briefly to amendment 10, which stands in my name. Amendment 10 simply calls for a report on the implications of aligning the rates of capital gains tax with those of income tax. I drafted amendments that were not in order, which calls into question the ability of Back Benchers to amend the Finance Bill and is perhaps something that can be discussed at a later date.
When capital gains tax was introduced in 1965, it was an attempt to get some equivalence between income tax and taxation on gains through capital investments. There has been reform since then. It is interesting that, under Conservative Chancellors, capital gains tax was aligned with income tax rates. Then, in the late 1990s, the Labour Government introduced the tapers and the link to the time that an asset was held. In 2007, there was further need for reform when it was discovered that executives of hedge funds were determining carried interest—their bonuses, that is—as part of their capital gains tax relief. As a result, they were effectively paying 10% tax on their income—less than their own cleaners. All parties in the House acknowledged that that was a scandal and recognised the need for reform.
It is accepted that there is an element of compromise between, on the one hand, an equitable tax relationship between income tax and capital gains tax, and, on the other, an arrangement that will support genuine entrepreneurs and business. There has always been an element of fudge, but there was a view that we would try to address the issue in this Finance Bill, whoever was in Government. The previous Government were considering capital gains tax reform, and that was widely supported by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Indeed, Lord Lawson himself made statements about the need for a more equitable relationship between the two, in order to tackle tax avoidance. Such reform was also included in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. I do not want to bait the Lib Dems tonight. This is too important an issue for that, although it can be quite entertaining.
In an interview with Andrew Marr, the Prime Minister said:
“I think everyone recognises there is a problem. When you have a capital gains tax rate of 18% and a top rate of income tax at 50%, you’ll find people finding all sorts of ways to treat income as capital gains.”
He went on to say that the new Government would look at taking a different route to help what he described as the fairness agenda. The problem is exacerbated by the 50% increase. With income tax at 50%, even the 28% rate of capital gains tax proposed in the Bill will still leave a 22% differential to encourage further tax avoidance as people designate their income as capital gains.
My amendment simply asks for a report to be produced that will examine afresh the implications of the alignment between income tax and capital gains tax. I believe that we shall return to this issue in further Finance Bills, because I do not believe that this compromise will hold, or that it will be seen to be equitable or fair. I believe that tax avoidance will continue, certainly among the highest paid, who will re-determine their income as capital gains in order to pay the lower rate of 28%. I accept that an increase of 10% is significant, but it is not significant enough to implement the fairness agenda that the incoming Government have proposed.
Andrew George
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I am pleased that, unlike the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), he chose not to bait the Liberal Democrats tonight. At this late hour, it would perhaps not be a good idea to respond to the rather combative approach taken by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks. I shall merely point out that the Labour party, which claims to be the champion of the working poor, created a capital gains tax environment in which the cleaners of wealthy bankers were paying a higher marginal rate of tax than the bankers themselves. That is no doubt a cause of great embarrassment to the previous Government, so I do not think the Liberal Democrats need take any lectures from Labour Members on this issue.
Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 40% to 18% had many unintended consequences for communities across the country, including my own, which sucked in a lot more second home ownership. The more advantageous tax environment enabled more people to purchase second homes, and this made the housing environment, particularly for affordable homes, a great deal worse in many parts of the country. It is worth responding to the right hon. Gentleman: if he wishes to bait, we can certainly fight back. As for the questions he asked, most were directed at those on the Treasury Bench. The intention behind the starred amendments—I cannot refer to those standing in my name—was to probe the Government about the purpose of and background to the decision to set the capital gains tax rate at 28%.
The Exchequer Secretary has done an excellent job of responding to the issues raised this evening. I previously put questions to him—about his Department’s economic modelling to determine the level of capital gains tax; what research or impact assessments he undertook before deciding to roll forward with the capital gains tax proposals; and the Department’s estimates of the revenue accruing to the Exchequer from capital gains tax if the income tax rates for those with an income above the higher rate threshold were set at a range of different levels—which he answered on 7 July. Unfortunately, I was not given the requisite information to make an adequate assessment of the likely impact of this particular measure in contrast to the setting of capital gains tax at another threshold.
I put questions to my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary in the Budget debate—on 1 July, I believe, but I might have to check that. I asked him why the capital gains tax rate had been set at 28% and not a higher rate. The answer was that there is a law of diminishing returns. By the time that level is reached, the return to the Treasury would be significantly less, making it not worthwhile to take it beyond that particular level. Unfortunately, we do not have the statistical or factual basis on which to make that assessment.
Partly in response to the right hon. Member for East Ham, who commented on the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitments in the context of the level at which the threshold should be set, we have to address ourselves to the lack of evidence and information that the previous Government provided. The information on which many policy decisions were taken might well have been unreliable Treasury estimates at the time.
In conclusion, I urge the Exchequer Secretary to provide a little more information in response to my previous questions, which I think would help us all to understand rather better why the capital gains tax rate has been set at 28% and not at some other level. That would help to reassure us that it is not going to attract those who would have had to pay income tax at a much higher level if they had not simply transferred their assets into capital.