Osborne isn't increasing funding for HMRC - he's cutting it

The Chancellor's £154m "blitz" on tax avoidance will do little to compensate for £2bn of cuts.

With two days to go until his Autumn Statement, George Osborne is attempting to convince the public that he's launched a "blitz" against tax avoidance. The Chancellor has announced £154m of funding for HMRC to draft in an "army of investigators" to target those companies, like Google, Amazon and Starbucks, who, in the words of the Commons public accounts committee, pay "little or no corporation tax here".

Osborne said:

The government is clear that while most taxpayers are doing their bit to help us balance the books, it is unacceptable for a minority to avoid paying their fair share, sometimes by breaking the law. We are determined to tackle this problem and HMRC are making good progress, but we are giving them additional tools to bring in more.

But what the Chancellor won't say is that the £154m will barely begin to compensate for the cuts he's made. In the Spending Review in 2010, Osborne announced that funding for HMRC would be reduced by 16.5 per cent (£2bn), including 10,000 job cuts. By 2015, staffing levels will be at an all-time low of 56,100, significantly limiting HMRC's ability to collect taxes. A report earlier this year by the public accounts committee found that job cuts among revenue officials meant the government collected £1.1bn less in tax than it would otherwise have done. "We are not convinced that the decision to reduce staff numbers working in this area in the past represented value for money for the taxpayer," it said.

The cuts didn't begin under Osborne - staff levels fell from 97,073 in April 2005 to 66,992 in November 2010 as a result of spending reductions made by Labour - but he has made the problem worse. So, while £154m of funding is welcome, as far as these things go, it's unlikely that Google will be losing any sleep. 

Chancellor George Osborne speaks at the Conservative conference in Birmingham earlier this year. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Theresa May shows again that Brexit means hard Brexit

The Prime Minister's promise of "an end to free movement" is incompatible with single market membership. 

Theresa May, it is commonly said, has told us nothing about Brexit. At today's PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn ran with this line, demanding that May offer "some clarity". In response, as she has before, May stated what has become her defining aim: "an end to free movement". This vow makes a "hard Brexit" (or "chaotic Brexit" as Corbyn called it) all but inevitable. The EU regards the "four freedoms" (goods, capital, services and people) as indivisible and will not grant the UK an exemption. The risk of empowering eurosceptics elsewhere is too great. Only at the cost of leaving the single market will the UK regain control of immigration.

May sought to open up a dividing line by declaring that "the Labour Party wants to continue with free movement" (it has refused to rule out its continuation). "I want to deliver on the will of the British people, he is trying to frustrate the British people," she said. The problem is determining what the people's will is. Though polls show voters want control of free movement, they also show they want to maintain single market membership. It is not only Boris Johnson who is pro-having cake and pro-eating it. 

Corbyn later revealed that he had been "consulting the great philosophers" as to the meaning of Brexit (a possible explanation for the non-mention of Heathrow, Zac Goldsmith's resignation and May's Goldman Sachs speech). "All I can come up with is Baldrick, who says our cunning plan is to have no plan," he quipped. Without missing a beat, May replied: "I'm interested that [he] chose Baldrick, of course the actor playing Baldrick was a member of the Labour Party, as I recall." (Tony Robinson, a Corbyn critic ("crap leader"), later tweeted that he still is one). "We're going to deliver the best possible deal in goods and services and we're going to deliver an end to free movement," May continued. The problem for her is that the latter aim means that the "best possible deal" may be a long way from the best. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.