Question from the audience. If i can find in john was be in the audience wisby in the audience who should have a microphone. He will have a microphone so. People in this audience slightly more obsessed with tax. More on that subject. John a number of questions. Anna one on tax evasion versus tax avoidance. John i was always brought up to distinguish between tax evasion being something illegal and tax avoidance which is something you said we have the right to pay the least tax. And it does seem that if there is so much a blurring of the edges of the talk of politicians now between what is legal avoidance without trying to invest. And actually what is evasion. Could there be a little bit of clarity on that distinction . And why it is blurred so much in a lot of the rhetoric . Anna we will start with you. Talk about the scourge of tax avoidance. Chuka umunna i think everybody talks about it. There is a difference between evasion and avoidance. I do not think it is a difference between planning and egregious avoidance. I often have this discussion with Business Leaders. I have talked to them about all of this. One thing that we have trust issues in politics and something we are not in a position to lecture but we have to recognize in spite of the incredible thing British Business has done for the country in providing jobs, we have trust issues in business. It is a very unattractive argument to make to your customer, your communities in which business exists. The law allows us to do certain things and were going to do them. If you do not like them, frankly you politicians should get out. There are lots of things that we as citizens would like to do and the law allows us but we do not do because of our care and consideration for other people in society. That is the starting point for this debate. Quite a lot of consensus on this of all political parties, people think what we say in westminster is quite extreme in hyperbolic you will not hear what we actually hear from constituents on the doorsteps. This type of issue makes of them very, very angry indeed. It suggests it is more for some people and large corporations and another rule for them. That is bad not only for society but for business in my view because it diminishes the standing of society and reduces trust. We all in politics and business got to build that. That is why become such an issue. Anna nick . Nick boles i disagree. I think it is about social responsibility. I cannot explain to a shopkeeper while he is paying a higher percentage of his profit in tax them lots of very Large Companies with very wellknown brand names which i will not to mention all live television. I cannot really explain to individuals working in my constituency while they are paying a high your a higher tax. Of course, theres a difference between evasion and the, very basic avoidance through taking advantage of Government Schemes to encourage savings for their own form of a aggressive of ward is a you know what they are. And people are always inventing new ways and they are very clever people who will come all the time and, with new ways. Excellent we to clamp down on. The previous government did not clamp down. And we have to clamp down on them. We have further to go in regard to a big corporations, big global corporations. Anna i will come to you in a moment. A show of hands. We hear the stage social responsibility and tax avoidance, tax avoidance are we sure we are clear in the room the definition of tax avoidance of these days and what is ok and what is not . Can you raise your hand if it is not entirely clear as people who should have a knowledge of accessible tax avoidance of these days . There we go. Entirely unscientific but i would say probably half of the room put up their hands. A room full of Business Leaders who are not clear in their minds what is ok tax avoidance and what is not. It is an issue. Vince cable the boundaries are blurred because of that are blurred. We introduce at the beginning of a last parliament the principal. The cyst behind it is that people set out sense behind is that people set out to perverse the legislation of tax. Abuse of tax avoidance. As nick said, where not talking about where the government clearly is setting out an objective want to encourage people to save and take advantage. That is absolutely different. What will happen in the next government will be increasingly less about abusive tax avoidance. That partly relates to companies trying to use complex arrangements around transfer of pricing or valuation of intellectual property to avoid paying Company Taxation whether profits. There will be increasing coordination between governments. Certainly, we have seen the stories are round hsbc and that kind of practice is completely unacceptable. And governments will find ways of stopping it. Two concrete things. I introduce a public register of ownership, which is legislative four. It is possible to trace the owners of companies when it was not possible before. To crack down on that kind of avoidance. The practice of banks and probably accounting companies, too, setting down to give advice on how to avoid tax. That will become illegal. I think were all in this. We are all on the doorsteps. Nothing is more cellular tory the leading a small trade that has been screwed to get the last bit of value added tax. They see the Big Companies of the world paying very little. That actually destroys the spirit of entrepreneurship. Im afraid the next government will be be abusing tax avoided. Nick boles if you got an idea of something, go to a nurse in your local hospital and explain it to her for three minutes. If you can explain it to her for three minutes and she thinks it sounds reasonable, it is ok. If she gets pretty angry with you, it probably is not. Anna there sounds like it could be an app for that. Chuka umunna i do not know if the camera picked it up but speaking to those who advise you and as i said, spoken to be heads of all of big firms about this. They know the difference. And so, if they understand the difference then know. That should be on the fis they are giving. In the that should be the advisor they are giving. The understanding of egregious tax avoidance means and what the next described and what vincent described people deliberately put in play structure which have their principal goal getting around making the contribution our society expects. You cannot expect us to invest in infrastructure skills and r d and all the rest if we do not have the money to baby to do that. Thats all society asked. How the money to be able to do that. Anna some people were looking for a change of tone on tax from those in government, it seems like there would not be much change in the parliament whoever takes charge. Lets get to another question we had before this. This is from sean fox who cannot join us. The single biggest saving tell this is would be combining National Insurance and in contacts into a single tax into income tax into a single tax. Will the parties do it . An office has called for this to happen. They levied on different time periods. Vince, you have been doing this job for a little while. Why not . Vince cable before my party got into government, we looked at this in opposition. It is an attractive idea except for National Insurance carries with it some degree of pensions for example. Partially linked to your National Interest contribution. There is a legal and ethical issue. I think a more tricky problem is when you actually look at the structure of the taxes, you get break point a different level and combine to produce some very strange outcomes with very high rates of marginal tax at difficult points. What we have done, also the policy originally of lifting the threshold of income tax which was done as a coalition project. It has been very successful. Arguably, one should be doing the same for National Insurance. It can be extremely expensive to do the two together. It is simple for location and i can see the superficial attractiveness. The practicalities defeated in all government the anna George Osborne say he is sympathetic to the idea. The imf said in the time has come. Nick boles George Osborne is probably listening to the Prime Minister. It is probably unlikely to be in it. Not that i can guarantee you. Were all instinctively sympathetic to it. The central ideas that havent been done for you usually not been done for a reason. We are quick to take up a attractive ideas that are easy. We want to win votes. If they have not happened, it is a reason. Either because it is expressive or not as beneficial as a first appears. And this, it is both. Anna it expensive and might be difficult but people in this room make expensive and difficult decisions all the time. Is it that they would be to invest in the shortterm term to make about longerterm . Nick boles it is an attractive idea. I do not think it would have a transformative effect on employment growth or disposable income. That it would counter the priority of the level of financial commitment it would involve. At a time where we all trying to bring down our borrowing and public spending, it would be quite you would want it to be a humdinger to justify the cost. Chuka umunna i will be born to say i agree with the boat both nick and events. Oh, dear. I think two different animals. People looked into the details that the differences are quite hard. Anna it must matter to business. The single biggest saving to business. Should we have another show of hands . Who would ring it is a good idea . It would make a big difference to business, cost of doing business to see a merger of these two taxes . Put your hand up if you think its a good idea. Not overwhelming on that one. Maybe we will move on. Lets move on to a broader question. We have Richard Whitlock joins us in the audience. Lets see if he has a microphone in hand. A question about richard couldve the panel give examples of how you will put the nations economy i had of your partys ahead of your partys self interest . Anna a complicated question. One that we would be grateful for your thoughts. Any thoughts . Lets start with vince. Vince cable we have demonstrated that is what our priorities are which is it happened in my case to be ive fought most of my political life in supporting that. The National Interest to sort out what is an economic emergence. I think was demonstrated from the parliament situation. We can rise to the occasion. The next problem and will be different. Theres a lot of tough economic decisionmaking. That kind consideration is not relevant. My partys role is for the duration to stop at the other two main parties and veering off into extreme directions. We already have details on what it might intel. Maybe coalition or supporting the government from the back benches. Anna if there is no emergency, could you still going to a coalition . Vince cable it is possible. We need to show some humility. We do not pick the next government, the people do. And the party that gus the largest number of seats has the option of trying to form a government and they could do it on their own as a minority or invite other parties. And it will be constructed in that situation. Nick boles the observation is i am slightly amused when i listen to particularly vinces leader. The argument is for perpetual im not sure is the most attractive to the public. I actually think that towards the end of the campaign we will see a debate around whether or not people want a coalition or major governance again. Ask of the country to give us a majority. The National Economic interests first in our policy and the additions we made last year whether or not to match the tories in having a referendum was passed on the mazda list difficult political situation. It is not the most popular institution out in the country. With had a difficult few years, it out of the financial crash. Whenever wet had a financial crises, people do, communities tended to turn on themselves and seek to other people and blame other people for your economic problems. We have seen in the past. My father arrived in the 1960s and 1970s and people were blaming black and asian. The current people to blame our eastern european. I do not think it in keeping the British Values and we should a absolute no trouble at all. And the decision not to match the tories in the referendum frankly allow our policy to be taken hostage by the u. K. And the easiest thing for us to do politically would be to say, we going to do this referendum. We agree with nigel on these things. We said, no. There a lot of Business People in fact, nigel said, ebola matches. You will be doing a referendum too. We decided no. You will match it. We didnt believe in we do not believe that National Economic interests is in the opinion. By the way, not to say that it is a referendum we could win. Absolutely it could be won. There is that risk. We did what we believe to be the National Interest. Anna theres lots of differences. The last time i spoke to the bbc they said their members want to stay in the eu but what a referendum. Chuka umunna everybody wants to reform the European Union but i hated this kind of sulky obstructionism that suggests the u. K. Gets run over in europe which is nonsense. During tony we were able to marshall a majority behind the british stand. David cameron is the first Prime Minister was ever lost the vote on the european council. What the colleagues insist say to me is they want particularly Northern European countries and they want to see the u. K. Retaking its leading and leading in europe the charge for reform instead of seeking and sulking on one side and moaning about everything. Anna we have a different statement earlier. Nick, your response to the question about putting the nations economy ahead of your partys self interest. Nick boles vince is right. Two parties with common goals. We work both personally and as parties very constructively together. The worlds predicted the coalition would not last and it would follow part and it would not get anything what a fall apart and will get nothing done and none of those have been proven to be true. What is true is that the british people do not like coalitions. The coalition is they have not enjoyed experience and they would like a clear result. And the truth this ultimately there is actually one clear result of available which is a conservative majority government. The position on the polls in scotland are absolute crystal clear. Every single poll makes it clear that the labour party will lose a huge number of seats and cannot form a majority without the support of the s p. Smp. Ultimately, we will respect the actual votes. They may say they do not want a coalition and they do not Want Parliament but thereve also may produce a hung parliament. Live where the democrats constructively and David Cameron put it down on the table. We will deal with reality in what they choose. It is very clear they want a clear result. Is sounds like you ripped off scotland and shown no interest in winning any support. We have challenges in scotland. Completely disingenuous. You should be looking to win support there as well. You are supposed to be a party. Nick we are realistic unlike your part. We will win one or two. Vince cable we have moved on from the world i grew up in. Lets take nicks proposition. Lets say in the next couple weeks and they get enough to get a majority of seats just over 35 of the popular vote. That is one in four of the electorate voting. Just imagine a government in that position with 3 4 of the lectures having neither voted for them or against them trying to run through over five years extremely unpopular policies. This a recipe for serious instability, not just the border but boy generally. The great strength of our government is that we came into power having representing a majority. If you add up the votes. It has been difficult for sure. Working together has not always been easy. We have a fundamental legitimacy. People are harking back to 40 or 50 years ago when you got a single party government. Just thinking about that is gone. Anna markets are nervous . Vince cable it is about one party trying to warn run the country. Thank you anna thank you very much. We have to say goodbye to our tv audience. We will continue into the room from the British Museum. Lets get a final one promise you will make in the room. You have 30 seconds. One promise, one business policy that will be a redline if going to a vote by vote. Vince cable i am not in a position to provide redline it. We will continue to keep Corporation Tax low and bear down regulation and cut spending in a responsible and steady way so this economy carries on growing. Nick boles like nick, we do not have read allies and im not here to determine them. First of all, i want to maintain the longterm strategy we have got of industrial strategy. I would be very concerned about a very deep cuts in public spending that undermine our ability to provide skills and infrastructure. Entry into European Union and the referendum is potentially destabilizing. Chuka umunna i am not in a position to set out red lines. If we end up in a referendum this would be our relation with your a you can take of the uncertainty created by a Scottish Referendum to multiply that can to give you says all the uncertainty of business in this country and as an avenue which we go. That is why we are and what we will do is keep the u. K. As a member of the European Union. We are not going to have this and are referendum which by the way the deputy Prime Minister has not said he will not go along with. We will keep this country in the eu if we left, it would be a disaster for bloomberg viewers and businesses and his world. Anna we will pick up on that. Check out that is the tv broadcast of the business election debate. Dont forget you can catch coverage you can see of the smp. All of that on the bloomberg programming later today or this week plus coverage of the Nort