Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Mel Stride and David Gauke

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gauke]

The UK is introducing a central register that is publicly available. We are leading the way on that; I am not aware at the moment of any other jurisdictions elsewhere that are pursuing that. We believe that we should set the benchmark, so I am pleased that we as a country are leading the way.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMRC resources and so on. He referred to headcount. He will be aware of the dramatic reductions in headcount that occurred under the last Labour Government. In the last Parliament, we invested more than £1 billion in HMRC to tackle evasion, avoidance and non-compliance between 2010 and 2015. We made more than 40 changes in tax laws, closing loopholes and introducing major reforms to the UK tax system. I think most people would agree that it is much harder to avoid and evade taxes now than it was five years ago. Over this Parliament, up to 2020-21, we will be investing more than £800 million in funding in HMRC for matters relating to evasion and general non-compliance, which will help HMRC tackle evasion.

We have a proud record. It is not purely about staff numbers, although as it happens, enforcement and compliance numbers were not reduced in the last Parliament; the reductions in head count were generally within personal tax. It is not simply about headcount; it is about making use of technology and information and acting efficiently. We have a proud record on that front and we will continue in that vein. The clause is part of that process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mel Stride)]

I beg to move,

That further consideration be now adjourned.

Tax Fairness

Debate between Mel Stride and David Gauke

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Let us look at what was in the last Budget in respect of stamp duty and the cap on reliefs. We could also look at what we have done with regard to capital gains tax. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has made it clear that the top 20% are affected most by the fiscal consolidation policies that have been pursued in this Parliament. Those with broadest shoulders are bearing the greatest burden. However, we have an enormous deficit that we have to get down—a deficit that we inherited from the Opposition.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the highest rate of income tax currently under this Government is higher than was the case in the previous Government’s 13 years, all bar the last couple of weeks?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right. The Labour Government were in office for 4,758 days. For all but 36 of those days, the highest rate of income tax was at 40p. Then it moved to 50p. There is a good question to ask the Opposition about why they kept it at 40p for so long. Why did they leave it until the fag-end of their Government, when it was clear that they would not be in government any more? The reason is that the 50p rate, predictably enough, did not do what it was supposed to do. It did not raise revenue, and an income tax that does not raise revenue is not something that a sensible Government would persevere with.

I turn to the mansion tax.

Changes to the Budget

Debate between Mel Stride and David Gauke

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

May I pass on a huge thank you to the Chancellor and to the Minister from Pathfinder Park Homes, a manufacturer of static caravans in my constituency, which is delighted with the reversal on VAT? In its view, it has saved its business.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I am sure that his constituents are grateful to him for the work he has done on this matter.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Mel Stride and David Gauke

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He brings a great deal of business experience to the subject. Trying to pick out individual constituencies in the way in which the right hon. Member for Delyn intends will add little to our understanding of the operation of the scheme, but, as a Government, we are keen to put out more information and to make the scheme transparent.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with Mr Mitah from HMRC who pointed out in Committee that the greater complexity and costs involved in the sub-regional route would damage the scheme overall? He said:

“If you have a system that required us to operate a more complicated, or a narrower, range of areas, by reference to which we were giving relief, that would raise the costs of compliance substantially.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 2 December 2010; c. 35-6, Q121.]

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Certain compliance problems would arise. Could we tell whether an address was for work or home? The scheme would become more complicated. Those claiming would need to ensure that they were in one particular postcode area or another, and there would be issues with boundaries. Distortions could be much greater than under the simpler scheme that we have introduced with essentially one boundary and three excluded regions. A host of difficulties would arise if we tried to follow the sub-regional route. Where would we draw the line? Would we end up considering boroughs, wards or polling districts? Exactly how would that work? We will revert to the matter later, but my hon. Friend is right.

Amendments 5 and 6 are aimed at providing flexibility to reduce the duration of the regional employer national insurance contributions holiday for new businesses. This would reduce the cost of the holiday to the Exchequer, and correspondingly reduce the benefit to new businesses. As I have explained, the Government want to target available resources to the regions most dependent on public sector employment. We do not intend to widen geographical coverage, and therefore have no need to find ways of reducing costs. We know that this scheme will reduce labour costs for new businesses, and has been widely welcomed by their representatives.

We have acknowledged that beyond this there is a good deal of uncertainty about exactly how the scheme will pan out in practice. However, introducing some flexibility to change the details of the scheme as proposed in these amendments would increase uncertainty for those who might potentially benefit, and could risk inhibiting decision making. This particular proposal could affect those who are already benefiting from the scheme, or those who are currently considering setting up a new business bearing in mind the Government’s policy. For example, a new business set up this month, which plans to take on employees towards the end of this year, would not get the full year’s holiday for these employees if we were to stop the scheme in September 2012.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn would agree that we were right to start operating the scheme as soon as we could, in anticipation of legislation being passed. Had we not done so, the benefit to businesses would have been delayed, and new businesses that had planned to start operation might have delayed in order to benefit fully from the scheme. I am conscious of the fact that the scheme requires the consent of Parliament, and we have been very clear about that in our guidance to potential beneficiaries. We are not pre-empting the decisions of Parliament. However, I hope that hon. Members would agree that it would not be desirable to withdraw the benefits we had planned to give to entrepreneurs who have already decided to set up in business. That risk applies to these amendments, and I am advised that as drafted the amendment is insufficient to provide a mechanism for extending the holiday, and does not therefore meet the intended aim.

With the commitment I have made today on the reports, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw new clause 1 and, in the light of my comments, not press amendments 5 and 6.