Draft Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds (Information) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 General Committees

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. May I wish everyone on the Committee a happy new year?

Once again, I must say that it feels a little like groundhog day: we are here again to discuss a Treasury statutory instrument that would make provisions for the financial regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. On each such occasion, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelled out our objections to secondary legislation being used in this manner, as well as the challenges of ensuring proper scrutiny of the sheer volume of legislation that passes through Delegated Legislation Committees. We have expressed many times our frustration about having to spend time and resources creating a framework that might never be used, and about the public money that has been spent on planning for what should not be viewed as a potential eventuality.

Because of the dangerous game now being played, statutory instruments considered by Committees such as this may not disappear into the ether on 29 March. They could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book, so they need proper and in-depth scrutiny. Equally, we must bear in mind the stress that financial markets would be under in the scenario that the Government allowed such a situation to materialise. Such instruments must be considered through that lens.

The draft regulations follow on from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. I do not want to rerun the many issues of contention that were debated during the passage of that Act, but I think a few significant points that relate to the draft regulations bear further scrutiny, and I hope the Minister will respond to them.

First, it would be helpful to have further information about how the FCA will assess equivalence of third countries’ legislation, compared with that of EU countries, following the fourth money laundering directive. Will it use the Commission’s list initially and then expand or contract it in the future? If so, what methodology and resources will be used to undertake that? Such a process could obviously be very resource-intensive—a point that I shall come back to later.

Secondly, and relatedly, the existing legislation refers to the Commission’s high-risk third country list. The draft regulations would onshore the EU list as of exit day and then commit the UK to updating the list. I understand from debates in the other place that that would be undertaken via the affirmative procedure for reasons of speed.

Has the Government’s thinking developed on enabling parliamentary scrutiny of changes to that list? Clearly, there is a need for speed, but that surely has to be balanced with appropriate oversight. As with sanctions policy, it would surely make sense to co-ordinate this with the EU, even if it is not done formally, given the potential resource implications of having to research many different jurisdictions speedily. We do not have an indication in the accompanying notes of how that process would occur.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I was going to ask a question in a similar vein about the high-risk countries. I would have less concern if the same list as the EU was used on day one. However, looking for comfort in the future, if the list is going to be changed, and particularly if it will diverge from the EU’s list, parliamentary scrutiny should be brought to bear on that.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We have seen a lot of contention around the definition of which countries go on the list. There have been criticisms, even at EU level, of how transparent or otherwise that process has been for countries going on or coming off the list. It is therefore important that we get it right if we end up adopting this process in the UK. We need to make sure that it is fully transparent and accountable. It can have a significant impact on the jurisdictions that are affected, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point.

Thirdly, I hope the Government will make clear what our co-operation with the EU on anti-money laundering efforts will look like in the future. Currently, we only seem to have the ubiquitous phrase that on this issue the Government are seeking a “deep and special” future relationship with the EU. The Minister provided us with a little more in his comments, saying that we would continue to engage with international processes—I am sorry I did not catch his exact wording.

We need more detail on this. That is important, given the current developments with the recast of the EU’s anti-money laundering machinery, including its decision to implement more transparency for trusts. The UK’s trust register, as I understand it, is not yet complete and it is not publicly available, even to the limited extent that is proposed in the reform of the anti-money laundering regime. That reform would cover business-like trusts and enable their beneficial owners—or the people who would benefit from their proceeds—to be viewable by those who could prove a legitimate interest in knowing about them, for example journalists as well as law enforcement agencies. That would go beyond the UK regime. It would be helpful to know how we, as a nation, envisage co-ordinating with that process.

We also need more information, given the continuing role of UK-based structures in facilitating hidden transactions. I was astonished to see, in response to a parliamentary question I tabled, that the Government’s loudly promoted crackdown on Scottish limited partnerships has been anything but. In October 2018, there were no less than 3,542 SLPs that said they could not reveal ownership information—which is, of course, now required by law—because of their own failure to obtain that information, and more than 600 that said they could not provide it because, despite knowing who their people of significant control were, they had not been able to collect the required particulars from them. Those figures had only reduced by almost a third and 12% respectively over the previous year, so there really has not been a crackdown in this area, despite what was promised. That is problematic, particularly when other countries are looking nervously at what is happening in relation to these shell companies in our jurisdiction, including EU countries.

Fourthly, I am unclear about one element of drafting. Regulation 8(b)(i) changes an emphatic “must” to a weak “may”, to coin a phrase—I am sorry, I could not help myself. Specifically, the amended regulations will state that the commissioners—HMRC—may, rather than must,

“make arrangements to ensure that the NCA are able to use information on the register to respond promptly to a request for information about the persons referred to in”

different regulations. It is not clear to me why that change has occurred. It seems to weaken the language and there is no explanation of it in the memorandum. Surely the parameters for such co-ordination are critical, especially in a context in which we lack any indication from the Government of when they will introduce their promised offence of failure to prevent economic crime, despite the consultation on the subject having ended many months ago.

Fifthly, and perhaps most substantially, there is—as with so many recent statutory instruments—a question about resourcing. Regulation 5(3)(b) grants the FCA the power to make further technical standards relating to the area. FCA funding has been increased by £5 million to cover withdrawal work, but as far as I can see, that is just to aid the transition; there does not seem to be any commitment to maintain increased funding to allow it to use the new powers that it has been given via such instruments. The FCA’s annual business plan includes the following statement about EU withdrawal:

“Although our Annual Funding Requirement has increased by £5m to cover EU Withdrawal work, we have still made difficult and challenging decisions about our priority activities across all business areas that are not related to work on EU Withdrawal, including limiting the number of new initiatives we’ve taken on. We recognise the particular significance of EU Withdrawal on wholesale financial markets, investment management and the general insurance sectors, and our decisions have been driven by our recognition of the capacity of industry to absorb change.”

Just yesterday, I discussed with the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner his concerns about resourcing for the FCA with respect to adequately identifying and prosecuting fraud—not an area that is covered by the EU withdrawal process, but one that needs to be provided for appropriately. There still seems to be a lack of recognition from the Government about the impact of this SI and others on the FCA’s existing work programme. The FCA’s activity was criticised in FATF’s assessment last month for having cited only eight firms and collected just £254 million in penalties for anti-money laundering violations over the past five years. The Minister mentioned OPBAS; I am sure that he will be aware that the supervision of professions, which was meant to be tightened up, streamlined and made more coherent through OPBAS, was another area criticised in FATF’s assessment.

Interestingly, the draft regulations make no mention of the National Crime Agency, despite concerns expressed in the FATF report about the lack of resources for the NCA, particularly its financial intelligence unit. The Committee may be aware that there has been considerable debate in the specialist press about whether the UK’s glowing assessment by FATF was warranted, particularly given the lack of action to better resource the NCA—an issue highlighted in FATF’s last evaluation in 2007, which stated that

“the UK financial intelligence unit needs a substantial increase in its resources and the suspicious activity reporting regime needs to be modernised and reformed.”

FATF also flagged continuing problems with the lack of verification of data on the Companies House register, a subject that I have repeatedly raised in the House. Because of the FIU’s lack of resources, FATF concluded that it

“misses the opportunity to search for criminal activity that might otherwise be missed by”

investigators who

“mine the SARs database for issues linked to their own geographical or operational remits.”

I understand that the UK assigns only nine employees to analyse hundreds of thousands of suspicious activity reports, or SARs, each year.

Back in 2007, the UK pledged that it would significantly increase the staffing level of the FIU to 200, but press reports from last October suggested that it has only 80 full-time employees and that the unit has actually lost one in five of its staff over the past 11 years. Apparently, the Government have committed to increasing staffing in this area, so it would be enormously helpful if the Minister provided some assurances on that score. It is not just the FCA that works on money-laundering issues, but the FIU in the NCA, so we need to know that it will be adequately resourced.

[Kirsty Blackman]

May I start by wishing everyone a happy new year? I will not rerun the entire speech of the hon. Member for Oxford East, but I largely agree with what she said.

I have just a few points to raise. First, if the list of high-risk third countries, which the hon. Lady mentioned, is to change, it will be really important to have expertise in scrutinising those countries, so perhaps there should be a formal role for the Treasury Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee to look at any proposed changes. Allowing the list to be considered by a group of MPs who are used to looking at such issues would reduce the likelihood of insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. People would still complain, but it would be less likely that people would say that changes to the list of high-risk countries had not been adequately scrutinised if they were looked at by one of those Committees in advance.

I am less concerned about the list in the first place if it is to be directly transposed from the EU’s list, because that is clearly working adequately for us at the moment. It is for changes that might come through in the future that a proper scrutiny process needs to be set up, to ensure that we all feel that these issues are looked at properly.

As was mentioned by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson and the Minister, there will be an obligation on the EU and the UK to co-operate. I appreciate that, but my concern is about the actual mechanisms that will be in place to allow that to happen. What mechanisms will be in place? Currently there are mechanisms because we are all part of the EU. How will conversation between those authorities be facilitated, and will that happen on as regular a basis as we would like?

We do not want to see a situation where the UK leaves the EU and is less good at tackling money laundering as a result, and we do not want to see the EU’s powers to tackle money laundering reduced either. Continuing that close co-operation is really important. If the Minister made clear through what mechanisms those conversations would happen, it would give us a level of comfort and assurance, rather than there being an obligation to co-operate but no clarity about how it will actually happen.

Lastly, the explanatory memorandum to the draft regulations states that

“certain credit institutions, financial institutions and payment service providers need to expand existing IT systems to reflect the greater levels of scrutiny that will need to be applied to correspondent banking relationships between the UK and EEA states”.

I accept that some of those organisations already scrutinise money laundering issues at that level, but some of them do not, as is reflected in that note. I would like the Government to explain what conversations they have had with such organisations about whether they are ready for the changes to be made to their IT systems, whether they are ready to expand their IT systems in the way that the Government say they need to, and whether they will be able to do that by the Government’s required date.

It is important, if we are putting an additional burden on companies and organisations, that we do not talk only to financial services trade bodies in general. The Government or their agencies should be talking to the individual companies that will have to make those changes to ensure that they are compliant at the beginning. We should ensure that they are compliant not just to make sure that they are compliant, but in order that money laundering is reduced as a result. It is important that the Government make it clear whether the companies will be ready, and if the companies will not be, what they are doing to make sure that the companies will be ready.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I would be happy to respond on that matter as well.

A point that often comes up in these discussions is the resourcing of the FCA. I acknowledge the great work that it has done over the last 18 months in helping the Government to prepare these SIs. It is funded by an industry levy and has set out in its business plan the resources involved in working towards exit. The Government are confident that the FCA has made adequate preparations ahead of leaving. If additional resources are needed in the event of no deal, it would be able to raise those funds very quickly, but we would all be in a situation where we would have to do things that we had not anticipated. This programme of SIs is about getting to the basic starting point that allows us to have confidence in the regulatory regime, but I do not deny that a considerable amount of work would need to take place.

On maintenance of standards and equivalence with the EU on anti-money laundering, the hon. Member for Oxford East discussed the use of the word “may” versus “must”. I want to clarify that what we have removed is the obligation to report in a specific way, as per the legislation. It is not our intention to remove ourselves from either the spirit or substance of that obligation; it is just that it would be inappropriate to leave a legal obligation to an entity when we are a third party. That is the only way that I can describe it.

To expand further on future co-operation, through the bilateral agreement with the EU, we expect to have an expansive relationship that would have a wide scope of cross-border activity. The changes in the SIs do not preclude deep co-operation between UK and EU regulators in the future. It is desirable to have that co-operation.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised the burden on banks’ IT systems. When one makes a transfer between one bank and another, if it is in an unfamiliar, non-mainstream destination in Africa—I will not name an individual country for fear of getting a letter from its ambassador—some checks would be done, because the bank would then obviously receive those funds. A check would be done on that, but because that sort of transaction is inherently risky, the same degree of checking will need to take place—and does take place in practice in the banking industry—with countries in the EU that are more familiar to us. Broadly, there is harmony on that matter anyway.

I mentioned the SARs reform, which the Home Office leads on. We anticipate that new IT will provide a more user-friendly portal for reporters from all sectors and that improved data processing, storage, analytics and distribution will be required. Work is being done across the Treasury, the Home Office and the MOJ to look at how we can refine that.[Official Report, 17 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 10MC.] At the moment, the basic problem is that there is a high volume of SARs and we could better interrogate that data pool.

The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned the concerns raised by the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner. He has also raised them with me and I will get in touch with him about them. Obviously, we do not rest on our laurels with respect to the FATF evaluation. I have mentioned the concerns that the Government have acknowledged in terms of the FIU, and the improvements to SARs and to the Companies House register, on which we expect a Government report in Q1 or Q2 of this year.

The statutory instrument is needed to ensure that the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime operates effectively and that the legislation functions appropriately if the UK leaves without a deal. I hope that I have adequately responded to the points raised.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Glen]

I am very happy to; I have obviously missed something.

[Kirsty Blackman]

When the Minister was talking about the resourcing of the FCA in the event of a no deal, he suggested that it would be able to draw down extra money very quickly. Is he basically suggesting that, in the event of a no deal, on 1 April, Parliament will come in and approve lots of money to be given to lots of different Government agencies to deal with that scenario, or will that happen in advance of a no deal? We have only 80 days to go.

[John Glen]

My colleague the Chief Secretary has set out comprehensive budgets for each Department for the financial year with respect to a no deal, and a process for urgent requests. The FCA would be able to raise its levy autonomously and separately from Government. It will have contingency arrangements for doing that quickly. I obviously cannot address all Government agencies and Departments, because it will be done through different Ministers in different Departments, but I can say that the Treasury has fully communicated the process for making additional requests in a no-deal situation to all Ministers in all Departments.

[Kirsty Blackman]

What about communicating that to Parliament rather than just to Ministers? I know that the scrutiny process is rubbish and Parliament does not have much say on Government spend generally, but surely it should have some say on that.

[John Glen]

If I take the Department for Education, for example, where a large portion of the budget is for providing food in schools, in a no-deal circumstance where additional costs might be associated with that food, the Minister would need to make a statement to Parliament about that and respond to it. Inherently in the process, there is a mechanism for the Government and different Departments to bring matters to Parliament. They would need to justify where they would spend that additional money and the basis for it. With respect, I think that is beyond the scope of the statutory instrument—at least, that is my judgment.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

The two new clauses ask the Chancellor to review the impact of certain provisions. They do not ask for an independent review; they ask for the Chancellor to review his own policies. Perhaps that reflects how much confidence the Opposition have in the Chancellor. He might be reassured to know that they feel that if the Chancellor reviews the impact of the provisions it will be an excellent analysis that they will want to follow. Again, this is not about creating something truly independent, but about asking the Government to produce a report on Government policies.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Is that not a slightly bizarre argument? I think the Opposition are trying to ask the Government to take into account in the review the priorities we have, rather than the Government’s priorities. For example, they may be putting policies in the Finance Bill to raise taxes to do something specific, whereas we are asking them to look at public health impacts.

[Kevin Foster]

New clause 1 says what it says: it asks the Chancellor to produce a review of the impact of provisions and to lay a report of that review before the House. It does not require anything to be done. It does not set out a detailed list of policy changes and how they would be paid for. I do not really see where the hon. Lady is coming from. Members can generally debate all matters that are put before the House, what they believe their impact will be and whether they will make a difference.

I have to say—my Scottish colleagues like to raise this point—that in some areas, for example the Scottish education system, it would be interesting to look at how help is being provided to children so that they have a route out of poverty. In the past, the Scottish education system was one of the highest rated in the world, but I think the Scottish National party has now pulled Scotland out of the global rankings—not because it is going up them, it is safe to say. We can certainly have reviews both ways, and it will be interesting to hear whether comments from SNP Members reflect the impact that aspects of Scotland’s domestic policy, for which it has been responsible for most of the past decade, have had on some of the statistics they wish to complain about.

I welcome the fact that the Bill again increases the earnings that someone can receive before becoming an income tax payer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

Absolutely. It is worth remembering, when we hear how the Opposition want to tax people and what our tax policies are, that the highest earners in this country are paying a higher percentage today than they did for all but the last few weeks of the previous Labour Government. The claim that the Government are being much more generous to the highest earners through income tax is completely false. Sadly, my hon. Friend now represents the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. I refer to the work of the SNP in making Northumberland a tax haven from its policies, which have hit a range of people on middle incomes. I am concerned that the impacts in Scotland of that policy will see its representatives here in Westminster blaming those impacts on Bills such as this one, when they are due to policies that the SNP, not this Parliament, has imposed on the Scottish people.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Scottish Government’s Budget ensures that 90% of businesses will pay less in business rates than they would if they were anywhere else in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that his Government should change their policies to match Scotland’s?

[Kevin Foster]

I certainly do not believe that the Westminster Government should change their policies to match the SNP’s income tax raid on middle earners and those who drive the economy. On business rates, anyone who has sat through my speeches on the high street will know that I have taken the view for some time that we need to look at how we tax the high street in future. The era of large corner premises being the most profitable place to sell goods and wares is long gone. I have to say that I do not think I will be looking at the SNP’s record for much inspiration when it comes to the question of how to stimulate the economy and boost people’s earnings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend helps me and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury by amplifying the point.

I said earlier that I was born and brought up in Cardiff. One of my abiding memories was of my late grandmother, who was born in 1908, and what motivated her throughout the whole of her life. She was the daughter of Irish immigrants. When she was at school—a Catholic primary school called St Patrick’s in Grangetown —a teacher brought a child to the front of the class, theatrically held their nose, and said, “Boy, go home, you smell.”

I can remember, in different circumstances in the 1970s, my Catholic primary school in Cardiff called St Mary’s. It was the school that my mother had gone to as well. It drew from a mixed economic demographic. There was a family with three children—I can see them now. If I sound emotional on this point, it is because I am. I am emotional because I can remember—although this may sound entirely preposterous and pompous—how I felt as an eight or nine-year-old, as I was, seeing this family. The mother always looked underfed. The father always looked harassed to death. The children, one of whom was in my class, had a colour of poverty. They had a smell of poverty. Poverty has a smell about it. It has a posture about it. It says, “We are beaten.” At the age of eight, nine or 10, I can remember looking at my classmate and thinking, “What can I do?” I realised that I could do nothing apart from provide a bit of friendship and support, and I did it as best I could, as I am sure that anybody would.

But that impotence of an eight-year-old has disappeared, and I can now stand here as a 49-year-old—[Interruption.] Yes, only 49—I know. I have had a hard life—that is what I tell my wife, anyway. I burn with the sense of injustice that the hon. Member for Gedling expressed. We are all in a position in this place where we are not impotent—we can actually do something about this. If I thought that Her Majesty’s Government were not as committed as I am on this issue, I would be in the Lobby with Opposition Members, but I do not think that. I think that the strategy of the Finance Bill is right. Our values and our principles must shine through. I urge Treasury Ministers and other Ministers to talk a little more about the why of what we are doing in our politics and a little less about the percentages and statistics.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I want to talk about a few issues, many of which have been brought up during the debate. The first is the subject of new clauses 1 and 5, both of which I support, and the way in which they have been written. I stress to the Government, and particularly to the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), that the reason why the new clauses call for reviews is that we have no amendment of the law resolution, which means that we cannot put forward more robust amendments that ask the Government to do things. If we could have tabled more robust amendments, we would have done so, and I am sure that the Labour party would have done so as well. The Government have chosen to hamstring us and, as I have said before, when Conservative Members are sitting on the Opposition Benches, they will regret this behaviour. The fact that they chose not to move an amendment of the law motion makes it much more difficult for us to table any substantive amendments, but we are doing our best.

The things that we have managed to do during these Finance Bill debates are unparalleled in the Scottish National party’s history. We have managed to have two substantive amendments accepted to the Bill. I had two amendments accepted to the previous Finance Bill, but they were particularly minor. These ones are much more substantive and call for reviews. One of those amendments fits nicely in this section of our proceedings, as it relates to the public health effects of gambling. I am pleased that that amendment continues to be in the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister bringing forward that review in the next six months, as we have called for him to do.

There are various reasons why a Government can choose to change or introduce taxes. They can choose to have a tax to raise funds for the Government. They can choose to have a tax relief to encourage positive behaviour, or a tax to discourage negative behaviour. They can choose to have a tax to do one of the things that the Opposition and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) have been keen to talk about. They can choose their priorities. They can choose to have a tax system that aims to reduce child poverty, reduce inequality and increase life expectancy, and we are asking for that to be the Government’s focus when they are setting taxes.

The Government should be looking at the life chances of the citizens who live on these islands and doing what they can to improve those life chances. That is the most important thing—it is why these reviews are being asked for. Whether or not the taxes that the Government have set are appropriate, we are asking for a change of focus and a change of priority, and I think the hon. Member for North Dorset was agreeing with that.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Forgive me if I am stating the obvious, but do we not also need these reviews because we have Brexit coming up, and we have to be able to reflect on and evidence things?

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is correct. One of the difficult things about looking at the potential outcomes of Brexit is that those stats do not exist. It is all well and good to talk about the fact that there are reviews sitting on shelves gathering dust, but we need stats. We need stats to be able to prove that Government policy does what it says on the tin.

The Minister can stand up and say, “This policy will raise £100 million for the Government,” but I would like to see not only the working beforehand, but the review afterwards that proves that the policy did what the Government intended it to do. I have been clear on a number of occasions that I do not think the Government do enough of that evidencing. The reviews being asked for would allow the Government to provide us with that evidence. Evidence written by the Government, rather than an independent individual, is still a legitimate thing that we can look at. The hon. Member for Torbay seemed to suggest that we would doubt information were it to come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—surely not! It would be good for him to provide that.

I want to talk about a few things that the SNP has been doing in Scotland and the changes we have chosen to make to not only our tax system, but other systems, and particularly those that affect the issues raised in new clauses 1 and 5. We have mitigated the bedroom tax, which has been a major factor in us having the lowest child poverty rate of any country in the UK. We have increased the number of people from disadvantaged areas who are going to university. We are making major changes to the care system for looked-after children. Those young people have had some of the poorest life chances in the past, and what the Scottish Government are doing on that is hugely important for ensuring that their life chances are improved.

We have increased the pregnancy and baby grant to £600. We are improving access to childcare, and we have the baby box scheme. We are the best country in the UK at paying the living wage—not the pretendy living wage, but the real living wage. People working in Scotland are more likely to be paid the living wage than those working in England. About half of taxpayers in England pay more than they would if they lived in Scotland, and that is the half of taxpayers who are earning the least. We think that that is a progressive measure that is assisting people to get out of poverty.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Lady is bringing out the successes of the SNP Administration in Edinburgh, but does it not still stand that, after a decade in power and with powers over taxation and healthcare, men and women in Scotland live for two years less than other people in the United Kingdom? In fact, we have the lowest life expectancy in the whole United Kingdom. There may be some successes—I support those on care—but certainly on the one thing that matters most, which is keeping people alive the longest, the SNP is an abject failure.

[Kirsty Blackman]

We have not had taxation powers for 10 years, and we do not have the full range of powers. For example, we do not have the full range of powers over public health, so we do not have in Scotland powers such as the public health taxation measures—the sugar tax—that were brought forward in the previous Budget. We do not have the full range of powers, and if Scotland were to be an independent country, with the full range of powers, we would be putting the things we are discussing today at the heart of our Government’s agenda. Our Government have done this and we will continue to do this—we are pushing for fairness.

I will wrap up, because I am aware that I am relatively short of time, but I want to talk about the people who are the poorest and, by the way, the most disadvantaged by the way in which this society is set up. Following the changes to universal credit, those in the bottom 30% of incomes will gain less from the work allowance than they will lose in the benefit freeze. The benefit freeze is costing them more than the changes to the work allowance will give them. Those people, who have no recourse to public funds, are the poorest individuals I see coming through my door, and this Government have caused that situation. This Government have caused a situation in which asylum seekers have got absolutely nothing. This is about the very poorest people, who have got the worst life chances as a result, and this Government are completely failing to do anything to support them or to improve their life chances. This is about people on disability benefits, who are really struggling, and at every turn, this Government have made their lives worse, rather than better. This is about lone parents, who are disadvantaged as a result of universal credit. This is about the increases in food bank usage.

The Government talk about people working their way out of poverty. I do not understand how people can have hope when they do not have enough to eat.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

I thank everybody who has made a contribution in this very important debate. There have been some extremely passionate and well-argued speeches.

Part of the debate has been exemplified by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who spoke in effect about who cares about these issues. We need to recognise that Members on both sides of this House—I include the Opposition in my remarks—care very deeply about whether our fellow citizens in our great nation are impoverished, are in dire straits, do not have enough to make ends meet, do not have enough to feed their children, or have children who do not have the opportunities in life that we wish for our children in turn. Those things matter considerably, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the quality of the speech he delivered, particularly in that respect.

Something else that lay at the heart of the debate between the hon. Member for Gedling and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, is whether the numbers matter. Do the figures matter? I think it was the contention of the hon. Member for Gedling that, in a sense, the figures do not matter. In a curious way, that is rather at odds with the notion of supporting new clause 1, because it calls for more figures to inform our decisions. In one sense, of course, the figures do not matter, because what matters is the condition of the people who live in our country. However, figures do matter when it comes to formulating the policy responses we need to address the situation, and if we are, in any meaningful way, to chart the progress, or otherwise, that Governments—ours and the Labour Governments who preceded us—have made on this extremely important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman’s succinctness is a textbook of how to help the House, and I hope it will now be closely studied.

[Kirsty Blackman]

In the interests of time, I will be very brief. I want to make it clear to the House that the SNP intends to push new clause 18 to a vote. I will briefly speak to some of the other new clauses and amendments that we have put forward. A couple of them relate to the expenditure implications of the UK now having to take charge of carbon and greenhouse gas taxes. They are about making sure that the Government are clear with the House about why they are spending this money and about the money they intend to spend before they do so. This is an additional cost that would be associated with the UK leaving the EU, which is a concern of ours. Obviously, we would not have to spend this money if we remained in the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

Yes, I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. That was raised in the Westminster Hall debate led by my fellow Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker).

I say to the Minister that it is troubling to hear that tens of thousands of people who want to settle with HMRC before the 5 April deadline have yet to receive calculations from HMRC. It is impossible for them— I think it would be for most of us—to settle large bills within a matter of months if they do not know what they will be asked to pay, let alone if they cannot start to make arrangements for how to pay them. These individuals need to know how much they have to pay, and I ask Treasury Ministers to step in and make clear what will happen to those people if they do not hear from HMRC by 5 April.

I will leave that with Ministers. I hope they can tell that there are MPs on both sides of the House who are concerned about this. By working together, we can make sure that the right tax is paid, but also that people are treated fairly.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am aware that we are fairly short of time, so I will not rerun many of the things I said in Committee—I am sure the Minister and those on the Opposition Front Bench will be delighted to hear that.

I want to highlight a few of the SNP amendments and new clauses in this group. We have a couple of new clauses asking once again whether the Government’s provisions will do what they intend. For example, we want them to review the changes to entrepreneurs’ relief. We also want them to look at the changes in relation to emergency vehicles, because we are particularly concerned about the potential rural impact. Those who have emergency vehicles in rural areas may have more cause to use them outside work time than people who use them in cities. We felt that that issue was not drawn out enough in Committee or in the information the Government provided previously.

New clause 17 is about Brexit analysis. It is important to note that, since the Brexit vote in June 2016, over $1 trillion has been pulled from UK equity funds, which is obviously a really large number. In any changes or preparations the Government carry out in relation to Brexit, therefore, they should note the impact on the economy, which, according to the Bank of England, has cost individual families £900 each so far, and there is also the impact on financial services, for example, which have historically been very strong in the UK.

New clauses 15, 11 and 14 again ask the Government to provide information through consultation reports. It is important that the Government tell us the consultation they did on the draft clauses they brought forward. On the ones they did not bring forward, why did they not do so?

On that point, I should mention that the Government have included a new schedule in this group. That is a relatively unusual thing for the Government to do at this stage, given that they could have included the schedule in the original Bill or brought it forward in Committee. Because the new schedule was not brought forward in the initial stages, the explanatory memorandum provided by the Government does not include details about it. It would have been helpful if it had been considered at an earlier stage or if the Members who sat through the Bill Committee had been notified that it was likely to come forward. Presumably, the Government knew about it before the Christmas recess, and it did not just appear out of the ether. That process could be improved.

The main thrust of my contribution in the short time I have remaining is about the removal of the link between the personal allowance and the minimum wage. I understand that the Government have removed it on the basis that the personal allowance has now reached £12,500 and that they therefore believe they do not need to keep the link. I understand why they are making that case, but if that link had been kept, with the Government required to do a review if the personal allowance threshold was set at less than £12,500, future Governments would have continued to be bound by it. That would have meant that the protection the Government felt was necessary for people on the lowest incomes would still be there in the future. I understand that the Government do not intend to reduce the personal allowance, but that protection could have been left in place without the law causing any problems. That is something I am concerned about.

It is particularly concerning when the living wage the Government have put in place is not a real living wage, but a pretend living wage. It also does not apply to anyone under 25, which is an issue the SNP has raised over and over again. Just because someone is 24 does not mean that their living costs are less than they would be if they were 26—they could have the same number of children and live in exactly the same accommodation. However, the Government believe that it is okay to pay them less just because they are under that age threshold. That is exacerbated by the fact that the minimum wage increases the Government have introduced this year increase by a higher percentage—not just a higher monetary value—the minimum wage received by those who are over 25. The gap is widening: those who are over 25 are getting a bigger increase in the minimum wage, while there is a smaller increase for the younger age groups. The Government need to take seriously the fact that they are saying apprentices are worth pennies, frankly, and that 16 and 17-year-olds are worth far less than people under the age of 25. We raised our concerns in Committee in relation to the removal of the number. I do not think it would have cost the Government anything to leave in the link to protect future generations.

[Mrs Main]

I wanted to have more time to be able to say what a great job the Government have been doing: a 43-year low for unemployment rates, 1,000 jobs a day created and bringing in the personal allowance upgrade even earlier. We do not have time to go through all that, but I believe that getting people into work and out of poverty is the way forward for many families.

The Government were absolutely right to target business rates as a way of helping the high street and small businesses, with a cut of 33% in rates for businesses with a rateable value of under £51,000. In areas like mine with high property values, however, it is not having the impact the Chancellor might have hoped. The new rate simply provides a cliff edge that penalises successful businesses in areas that are plagued by high property values. We must devise a system that helps small businesses and pubs to thrive, not just those with a low retail value. I recently met pub owners in my constituency who have been hit extremely hard by business rates. I have cut out an awful lot of my speech, but I am pleased to say that I have secured a Westminster Hall debate on this matter next Tuesday. I look forward to exploring the matter further with a Minister. Pubs in areas such as St Albans are seeing massive hikes in business rates, not the help that was intended.

Time is pressing, but I want to touch on new clause 26 tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). I have serious concerns about the retrospective nature of the tax being collected. Several of my constituents have raised cases with me and I am extremely concerned about how the process has been handled. Many make the case that this was not illegal tax evasion; they were advised to use the scheme as a way of keeping more of their own money. It is worth remembering that these people are not employees. They take on more risk, with no sick pay, maternity pay or other forms of support offered to an employee. I want to give a couple of personal examples, because I think that is key and we have so little time.

One of my constituents, who worked as an IT professional in the FinTech industries, is being pursued for £900,000 by HMRC for the loan charge. He is extremely worried—many are on the brink emotionally—and this has put him and his family under considerable stress. He had been advised that what he had done was lawful and he considered it to be so. He told me, worryingly, that he tried to settle the case with HMRC for about £700,000, but that that had been rejected. Many people who find themselves in tax difficulties manage to make negotiated settlements with HMRC. It appears that this particular group of people are being treated very unfairly and are being left in the very difficult situation of not knowing exactly how much they owe or how quickly they have to pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is great to have the chance to speak on the Third Reading of my fifth Finance Bill. Given my relatively short time in the House, that shows just how many Finance Bills we have had.

There is much this Government do that I would criticise, but I will start with three things that I am pleased are in this Finance Bill. The first, which the Minister mentioned, is the transferrable tax history. To be clear, I was calling for that when there was only one Scottish Conservative Member of Parliament in this place. Actually, I think there has been cross-party work on the transferrable tax history. I think the Government have worked well with industry in bringing it forward, and I am pleased that they have done so. I am really pleased that it is in the Bill, and I think it will make a big difference to the North sea in particular, given the fact that we can extract oil and gas from the North sea for a longer period as a result of the changes made. The jobs associated with that will be secured, which is particularly important for my constituents and those in constituencies around the north-east of Scotland, so I am pleased it is in the Bill.

I am also pleased that clauses 92 and 93 are in the Bill. Clause 92 was accepted by the Government in relation to tax avoidance. It was tabled by the SNP, and it requires a review of the effects of the provisions in reducing tax avoidance and evasion. The Government will have to bring forward this review within six months of the passing of the Act, and we look forward to them doing so. The Government chose to accept two of our amendments, neither of which I was involved in the debates on, so I am a little bit disappointed about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) led on this part of the debate, and my congratulations go to her on getting this through.

Clause 93 was also accepted as an SNP amendment. It was the result of the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on fixed odds betting terminals and the general work he has been doing on the public health impacts of gambling. Earlier, I made the point that we sometimes put in tax measures to discourage behaviour that we do not want to happen—for example, a harmful behaviour. I am really pleased that the Government will, as a result of the SNP’s pressure, bring forward a review of the public health impacts of gambling and the changes made. When the Government are taking decisions about gambling and gaming duties, they should always be thinking about the public health impacts and have them front and centre of any explanatory memorandum for future Finance Bills.

I am not going to be overwhelmingly positive; I have some negatives as well. The process for this year’s Finance Bill has been particularly—[Interruption.] Shambolic, yes. It has been particularly shambolic and inadequate, because the Government have failed to consult on as many of the measures as they should have done. They did not put them forward in draft format, so companies and organisations were not able to make known their concerns or suggest ways in which the Bill could be changed to make it better. I fear that that is not good for scrutiny. Changes were introduced in this Finance Bill to correct errors made in previous Finance Bills or to strengthen provisions that were inadequate in previous Finance Bills. Again, I am concerned that, because of the process this year, we will see more of that in future years.

The other thing that is particularly poor in this Finance Bill—this is a real contrast with the decisions made in Scotland—are the tax changes. Tax changes that have been made on things that are devolved to Scotland, which I none the less feel able to criticise, are not the ones that I feel should have been made, because they are not made from the progressive point of view that we would like. The tax changes we are making in Scotland are on a much more progressive basis, and the Government would do well to look at what we are doing in Scotland. In England, about half of taxpayers pay more than they would if they were in Scotland, and those taxpayers are the ones at the lower end of the income spectrum. They are the people we think we should be supporting, rather than the people at the top end of the income spectrum.

I have just a last couple of points. Better scrutiny of the process is always required. I have called repeatedly for the Finance Bill to be subject to evidence sessions in Committee, and I will continue to make that call of the Government until they capitulate, because Finance Bill Committees should hear evidence. The other half of this—the spend process—has been improved very slightly, but it has not been improved nearly enough, and we need better and more adequate scrutiny of Government spend before it happens, rather than just doing it through the estimates process.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), who was with me in Committee, as well as two members of staff, Jonathan Kiehlmann, who was involved in this, and Scott Taylor, without whose help I could not have gone through the Finance Bill Committee or the stages we are at now. I would like to offer my specific thanks to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HBOS Reading: Independent Review

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you very much for chairing this debate, Sir Christopher, and I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing it.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested, this is a debate that we have had a few different times on a few different but related topics. I also thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for his diligence and for continuing to raise these issues. I hope that he continues to do so until we get a suitable resolution, preferably from the Government taking action in relation to this issue.

I will just say a few things from the point of view of the Scottish National party and explain our position on this issue. However, I will start by saying that it is absolutely necessary for the economy that banks lend to small and medium-sized enterprises, and it is absolutely necessary for the economy that SMEs can have a good relationship with banks, but that is never going to happen if banks are not trustworthy and are not proving themselves to be trustworthy. If there are issues such as the one that we are considering, the best thing that banks can do is to be as transparent as possible about past issues, to make it clear that they cannot possibly happen again in the future. And if banks such as HBOS-Lloyds were to do that, it would be less likely that other banks would do similar things in the future and make the same mistakes. So, the transparency issue is important on many levels, not least for gaining the support of the public and SMEs for banking institutions.

The way that the cover-up has happened, and the lack of transparency, has meant that the pain has been elongated for those people who have gone through this process. Instead of the banks holding their hands up and saying, “Yep, we made a number of mistakes; here they are and here is the redress that you deserve”, they are trying, at almost every opportunity, to hide things. I do not think that is a very sensible way forward for the banks.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned some of the people who had come forward and who had to work incredibly hard, in order to have their voices heard and their problems raised. I will just take this opportunity to thank those people, too, for the hard work that they put in to make sure that these issues saw the light of day, albeit not yet in the way that we would have liked them to see the light of day. Nevertheless, those people have worked incredibly hard to bring that about and I thank them for it.

The SNP has been clear that we want to see as much transparency as possible in the internal review documents that have been produced, which means ensuring that they are published so that we can see the full position. I know that there are issues about the positions taken in the internal review, but the more of those documents that are published, the better the access to justice there can be for those people who are campaigning.

I will also highlight the fact that the decisions that were taken around a lack of transparency have meant that the public purse has had to pay a disproportionately high cost in relation to this issue. It has meant that any investigations that have taken place have cost more money than they should, because the evidence that was requested has not been provided to them. That is a pretty damning indictment.

The other major issue that I will highlight is the pressurising of people to settle and to sign non-disclosure agreements, which is an abhorrent practice; it just should not happen. To ensure transparency in the future, it is really important that people are able to talk about what happened to them, so that it cannot happen again to anybody else and so that people are not allowed to get away with committing fraud such as this again.

The SNP has called for several policies that would help in the future on this issue. We have repeatedly called for the reinstatement of the reverse burden of proof; the SNP has been incredibly strong on that. Our manifesto also talked about strengthening whistleblowing legislation for those people working in banking organisations, and I will continue to make the case to the Minister that the existing legislation needs to be strengthened.

Lastly, we have pushed hard for a permanent commercial financial dispute resolution platform, an argument not dissimilar to the cases that have been made today. It is so important that SMEs and those individuals whose lives have been ruined do not have to go through an immoral and financially unviable court process to get the redress they should receive, and the Government can take action on that today.

ONS Decisions: Student Loans

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

That is certainly one of the aspects the review is looking at.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

When will we have the full details of how this fits in with the Government’s fiscal plans—in the spring statement, the spending review or the autumn Budget next year?

[Elizabeth Truss]

In the spring statement, we would expect to see the revised forecasts. Of course, Government spending plans, which incorporate a huge number of areas and a huge number of Departments, will be announced at the spending review in the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Scottish National party would like the country to stay in the EU, which would, for example, severely disadvantage the Scottish fishing industry. We have negotiated a very advantageous situation in terms of having control of our fishing as an independent coastal state. The point my hon. Friend makes is also entirely right: if Scotland were to be independent there would be frictions at the border between ourselves and Scotland, which would not assist with trade.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On 19 November, the Exchequer Secretary told us that the Government’s analysis would contain a comparison between the Prime Minister’s deal and the status quo, and that it would contain insight from external stakeholders. It contains neither of those things. The Treasury Committee this morning produced a report that expresses disappointment that the Prime Minister’s deal has not been analysed. Yesterday, businesses lost 2% of their value. UK firms have no sympathy for a UK Government who are feart to put their shoddy deal before the House. Will the Chancellor stand by the words he said previously that

“remaining in the European Union would be a better outcome for the economy”?

Will he find some backbone and make that case in Parliament?

[Mel Stride]

The cross-government departmental analysis shows clearly that the outcome of no deal would see the United Kingdom disadvantaged by 8% of GDP compared with the deal negotiated at the moment in the withdrawal agreement. The best option identified in the analysis is the current deal.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The analysis does not model the deal. That is what the Treasury Committee says and that is what we are saying. It models Chequers; it does not model the Prime Minister’s deal. The Minister cannot stand there and make that case to the House.

Because the Prime Minister pulled the vote this week, businesses are accelerating their contingency no-deal Brexit plans. They are heightening their preparations for an emergency no deal. The legacy of this Government will be lost investment, lost growth and lost jobs. Surely the Chancellor cannot think it is acceptable that, just to save the Prime Minister’s job, hundreds of other people have to lose theirs?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady suggests that the analysis does not model the White Paper deal. It does exactly that, but it does it in terms of the future relationship and the political declaration which, as she will know, is a range of potential outcomes—so that is entirely what the analysis does. As I say, what it shows is that the deal we have negotiated with the European Union is the best deal available for the things that she and I hold dear: growth across our economy, growth in Scotland, jobs in Scotland and even lower unemployment in Scotland. The Scottish National party should now row in behind this deal to make sure that we do the best for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 79, page 53, line 26, leave out from “tax” to end of line 28.

This amendment would delete paragraph (b) of section 36A(7), which is being inserted into the Taxes Management Act 1970.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 139, in clause 79, page 53, line 28, at end insert—

“(7A) But an assessment under subsection (2) may not be sought by the Commissioners unless they are satisfied that the liability to tax is in excess of £50.”

This amendment establishes a de minimis threshold for the extended time limits of £50.

Amendment 140, in clause 79, page 53, line 42, at end insert—

“36B Public register of persons affected by change made by section 36A(2)

It shall be the duty of the Commissioners to publish a register of persons liable to tax by virtue of the provisions of section 36A(2).”

This amendment requires HMRC to create a public register of those paying tax as a result of the extended time limit.

Amendment 106, in clause 79, page 54, line 1, leave out “2013-14” and insert “2019-20”.

This amendment would mean that new section 36A does not apply retrospectively.

Amendment 107, in clause 79, page 54, line 5, leave out “2015-16” and insert “2019-20”.

This amendment would mean that new section 36A does not apply retrospectively.

Amendment 141, in clause 79, page 54, line 6, at end insert—

“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the characteristics of persons affected by the changes made by this section to TMA 1970 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(7) A review under subsection (6) must in particular consider those persons in relation to their—

(a) age,

(b) income,

(c) legal status, and

(d) primary language.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review certain characteristics of those affected by the main provisions of Clause 79.

Amendment 142, in clause 79, page 54, line 6, at end insert—

“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, in respect of each tax year from 2013-14 onwards, review the revenue effects of the changes made by this section to TMA 1970 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the main provisions of Clause 79 in respect of each tax year.

Amendment 143, in clause 79, page 54, line 6, at end insert—

“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by this section to TMA 1970 on incentives on persons to comply with requirements imposed by the Commissioners, whether under TMA 1970 or otherwise, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of the main provisions of Clause 79 on incentives to comply with tax rules.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 144, in clause 80, page 55, line 19, at end insert—

“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the characteristics of persons affected by the changes made by this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(7) A review under subsection (6) must in particular consider those persons in relation to their—

(a) age,

(b) income,

(c) legal status, and

(d) primary language.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review certain characteristics of those affected by the main provisions of Clause 80.

Amendment 145, in clause 80, page 55, line 19, at end insert—

“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the changes made by this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review certain characteristics of those affected by the main provisions of Clause 80.

Clause 80 stand part.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Once again, it is a pleasure to be in the Finance Bill Committee, where everything is calm, smooth, predictable and a little different. However, I hope the Minister will go away from predictability and choose to agree to the Scottish National party’s amendments 105, 106 and 107.

We have tabled the amendments because of representations we received from the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s low incomes tax reform group. On amendment 105, the group believes there is nothing to prevent Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs from relying on proposed new section 36A(7)(b) to claim, for example, that owing to internal resource constraints, it was unable to make the assessment within the normal time limits, which is the argument used for the introduction of the measure in the first place. That could render the safeguard provided in subsection 7(a) ineffective.

If paragraph 7(b) is to be retained, the low incomes tax reform group recommends that “reasonable” be defined clearly, possibly by the Minister here, but preferably on Report. For example, we consider it reasonable for HMRC to make any assessment no later than within 30 days of receiving the relevant information, rather than, in effect, within a variable time period that potentially depends on the size and complexity of the dataset received. We ask for that provision to be deleted, as the group believes it is unnecessary.

Amendments 106 and 107 would ensure proposed new section 36A did not apply retrospectively. Again, the low incomes tax reform group fails to see how the Government can claim that these rules do not have a retrospective impact, since subsection (5) makes it clear that the changes apply to 2016-16 and subsequent years, or 2013-14 where the loss of tax is brought about carelessly. The original consultation stated in paragraph 4.13 that

“the new legislation will not apply retrospectively”,

so to effect the legislation as intended, subsection (5) should be amended such that the rules apply only from tax year 2019-20 onwards.

We want HMRC to consider carefully the language used in taxpayer communications, to minimise distress to the taxpayer in any communications about the changes. As a minimum, HMRC should provide taxpayers with guidance on any relief that may apply to offset any potential liability, and avoid at all costs language that is not appropriate for a taxpayer who conducts their affairs in good faith.

Amendment 107 is about the retrospective nature of the clause. The Government have talked throughout the Committee about having done what they feel is adequate consultation. We have challenged that many times, and so have the official Opposition. If the Government consult and then do something different from what they consulted on, they need to lay out why or, at the very least, justify why they are doing something different from what they consulted on. If they hold a consultation on something and ask experts to get in touch with the information they think would make the best possible legislation, the Government need to consult on what they intend to do, not make changes to that legislation as it comes through.

I hope the Minister looks carefully at the amendments we have put forward. If he gives reassurances that he will look at this before Report to ensure that the Bill applies as intended, and that it does not have clauses that muddy the waters and apply provisions retrospectively, I would be keen not to push the amendment to a vote. However, that would require the Government to make it clear that they will consider the matter before Report and consider tabling their own amendments so that the tax professionals, who best know how the legislation will be applied, will have comfort that it is workable and will achieve what the Government intended. I will not speak any longer, because I know that the Committee has to move on, but I would appreciate some comfort from the Minister on that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I was making a slightly different point. It was not so much about what the response may or may not have been—I do not know the answer to that, regarding the measure that is under consideration by the Committee—but rather about our push to make sure that just those companies pay the appropriate level of taxation in the United Kingdom. Frankly, I think the businesses themselves want to be seen to be paying a fair level of tax. That is the impression that I get from the Treasury perspective. We are not on the back foot on this; we are very much on the front foot, pushing within both the OECD and the European Union to make sure that we can come up with a multilateral solution, which has particular advantages over going it alone. However, we have made it clear, as the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget, that in the event that there is not a multilateral solution, we will of course act unilaterally by 2020.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Before the Minister goes on to his next point, can I bring him back to the issue of retrospectivity? I am concerned that the Government’s definition of retrospectivity seems to be different from that of the CIT and the LITRG. Will the Minister write to me with his definition of retrospectivity in advance of Report, so that we can see whether we should press the amendment at that time?

[Mel Stride]

Yes, of course. I would be very happy to do that and in some detail. As I have already suggested, the general point is that those businesses that would not be in scope of these new arrangements, at the moment that they come into effect, would remain out of scope of these arrangements. That is the important point, I think, but I will certainly write to provide further detail.

My final point is about whether we are going soft on larger businesses, which I think was the overarching implication of the hon. Member for Oxford East. She should bear it in mind that at any one time, about half the 210 largest businesses in the United Kingdom are under active investigation. That does not mean that they are doing anything wrong—it may be far from it—but I sincerely believe that HMRC are very good at making sure that those businesses are thoroughly engaged with, particularly the large ones, because that is where a lot of yield lies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

This is probably a discussion for another day, in the sense that the hon. Lady is asking that, in the event that we revisit the issue of the time limits for onshore investigation, we should on that basis consider her amendment anew, because it might dispense with the different treatment between onshore and offshore. We might come to that in another world on another occasion, in another Finance Bill.

I am anxious to make progress—the hon. Member for Bootle sits there looking like he has got all day, but we have to make progress. Amendments 141, 142 and 143 on clause 79, and amendments 144 and 145 on clause 80, would require the Government to review the impact and effectiveness of the clauses within six months of the passing of the Act. Such reviews, however, would not have the intended effect: no data in relation to the characteristics of persons affected, the revenue effects of the changes, or the effects of the changes on incentives on persons to comply, will be available after six months. That is because it is unlikely that a full assessment of any relevant cases will be conducted within the six months after Royal Assent. Thus a report would likely be impossible or meaningless.

On that basis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If the Minister writes to me with the comments about retrospectivity, it may be that we will not press our proposal to a Division on Report, but I will not press it now in anticipation of receiving that letter.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I appreciate the Minister’s remarks, but we believe there is still an anomaly, and we remain concerned about the potential treatment of elderly taxpayers and so on. We will press our amendments to the vote.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 139, in clause 79, page 53, line 28, at end insert—

‘(7A) But an assessment under subsection (2) may not be sought by the Commissioners unless they are satisfied that the liability to tax is in excess of £50.’—(Anneliese Dodds.)

This amendment establishes a de minimis threshold for the extended time limits of £50.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

The overall aims of the clause appear sensible, providing HMRC with powers to make secondary legislation to require a person to provide security for corporation tax liabilities and construction industry scheme deductions that are or may be liable to HMRC. Under the clause, failure to provide security when required will be a summary offence and a person who has committed it will be subject to a fine.

As I understand it, securities may be required where a taxpayer has a poor compliance record, and in phoenix-type cases where a business accrues a tax debt, goes into liquidation or administration and the person responsible for the operation of the business sets up again, with the risk of running up further tax debts. Sadly, we have seen far too many of those cases.

The measure is effectively an extension of HMRC’s powers to require security in relation to some areas of business tax—the powers it has currently—to include VAT and PAYE, as well as national insurance contributions, insurance premium tax and some environmental and gambling taxes.

The Government maintain that the clause will be specifically targeted at the minority of businesses that seek financial gain from non-compliance with their tax obligations rather than those that are genuinely unable to pay. They argue that it will not affect those who are managing their debts with HMRC under agreed time-to-pay arrangements with which they are complying—we have touched on that subject previously.

The Government argue that the power will apply only where an HMRC officer considers that the provision of a security is necessary to protect revenue. None the less, we believe that the changes merit further scrutiny, and therefore have tabled a number of amendments.

Amendment 146 seeks to introduce a requirement for HMRC officials to issue guidance on their use of securities to protect revenue. It is a probing amendment that seeks to clarify the circumstances under which a security will be requested for revenue protection. We do not in principle object to the measures being taken to protect revenue—they appear essentially sensible—but we seek to understand better the scope offered to HMRC officials in making such a judgment or, conversely, the guidance they are offered by the Department in making such a decision.

Will the Minister clarify what guidance will be offered and undertake to publish it later? After all, in the Government’s consultation, the feedback was pretty clear. The feedback document stated:

“Most respondents wanted to see clear guidance put in place to support the introduction of the securities and ensure that securities will only be used where it’s appropriate and proportionate to do so. Two thought that legislation should be expanded to provide the rules under which the securities regime should operate.”

How have the Government responded to that point? It is clear that more transparency is needed.

With amendment 147, which follows the previous one, we are likewise seeking to determine what guidance HMRC commissioners would receive. As I said, we do not object in principle to the use of securities to protect tax revenues; we simply seek to understand how and when they will be applied and whether the guidance is determined by Government policy or subject to the discretion of officials. I hope the Minister will either provide that information to the Committee or accept our amendment, which would ensure that further information is provided before these powers are enacted.

The policy papers relating to the clauses suggest that that is necessary. They state:

“Experience from the existing securities regime has shown that, when used in a carefully targeted manner, securities can be very effective in changing the behaviour of non-compliant businesses and protecting future revenues against the risk of non-payment. Currently these powers apply only to certain taxes and duties.”

We need to understand how these powers will be targeted and which criteria will be used. I hope the Minister will respond to that reasonable request.

Through amendment 148, we seek to understand how the new measure will affect the construction industry. As I said, this is an extension of the security deposit legislation to the construction industry scheme and companies chargeable to corporation tax. The documents on the impact of the policy do not discuss the construction industry in detail. The expectation should be that anyone avoiding tax should pay, but it is clear that providing a security could reduce capital stock in some companies, so we need a sense of the impact on those who may be required to pay a security. Again, that was reflected in the Government’s consultation, which stated:

“Several respondents commented specifically on the implications for insolvency and commented that HMRC should give careful consideration in cases where viable businesses were struggling financially and a security could force the business into insolvency. Similarly, respondents did not want the use of securities to limit the rescue environment for financially distressed businesses. One respondent suggested that before extending the security deposit regime, HMRC should commission independent research into its current approach and the effect that demands for a deposit have on struggling businesses.”

The context is that HMRC has lost a large number of its experienced staff, who might have had expertise in security regimes in relation to other taxes. Therefore, we need to know what the impact is likely to be on businesses that may have to deal with HMRC officers who have less understanding of the construction industry than previously would have been the case.

Finally, I note that we are informed by the tax information and impact note that HMRC will need to make changes to its IT systems to process the new security cases. The cost of the changes is estimated to be in the region of £840,000. It will also incur operational costs currently estimated to be in the region of £5 million. Those costs seem fairly high to me. I hope the Minister will explain why they are of such a significant magnitude.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Very briefly, if the Labour party chooses to press these amendments to a vote, we will support it, because we think that what it is trying to achieve is very sensible.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Member for Oxford East for her questions, most of which I will come to in my general statement on the clause. It is good to hear that she broadly welcomes the general thrust of what we are doing. I think she said that amendments 146 and 147 are probing amendments, and raised various issues about the guidance. Of course, those who are to be affected by the measures will have a right of appeal—they will be able to go to a tribunal to dispute the imposition of advance payments. During the period of dispute, the payment is not required to be made. That is an important point. They will also be invited to comment with HMRC—and have a right to do so—on the proposed level of payment being sought during the process by which it is determined. If their circumstances change at any point in the process or thereafter, that is an opportunity for further discussion and potentially change in the amounts that might be involved. I will pick up one or two other points on guidance in my general remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

In the light of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Resolution of double taxation disputes

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 82, page 58, line 9, leave out from “section” to “may” in line 10.

This amendment provides for all regulations under the new power to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 138, in clause 82, page 58, leave out lines 13 to 17.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 137.

Amendment 149, in clause 82, page 59, line 15, at end insert—

“128D  Review of effects of EU withdrawal

(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effect on the exercise of the power to make regulations under section 128A in the event that—

(a) the UK leaves the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement,

(b) the UK leaves the European Union following a negotiated withdrawal agreement.

(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the review under subsection (1) before the House of Commons within two months of the passing of the Finance Act 2019.”

This amendment would review the impact of the main powers under clause 82 in the event the UK leaves the EU under (a) no deal or (b) a withdrawal agreement.

Amendment 150, in clause 82, page 59, line 15, at end insert—

“128D  Review of revenue effects of section 128A regulations

On each occasion the Treasury exercises the power to make regulations under section 128A, the regulations (or, as the case may be, the draft regulations) must be accompanied by a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the expected revenue effects of the regulations.”

This amendment would require any regulations to be accompanied by a statement on expected revenue effects.

Clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will come to amendments 137 and 138, but first I would like to speak briefly to Labour amendments 149 and 150.

We have seen the complete and total shambles over the past 24 hours—and not just over that period, but over the past two years. The past 24 hours have highlighted where we are in relation to EU withdrawal. Various people are suggesting that no deal is more and more likely, so it is incredibly important we know the potential effects of any changes that the Government propose to make to legislation in the event of a negotiated deal or no negotiated deal. We have a clear idea of the effect of retaining the status quo, which is the Scottish National party’s preferred position, and the revenue effects would be much easier to calculate. We are comfortable supporting Labour’s amendment 149 on that subject and amendment 150, which is about the expected revenue effect of the regulations.

I turn to the two SNP amendments. Amendment 138 is consequential on amendment 137, so I will focus on amendment 137. Given what has happened in recent times, trust in the Government is possibly at its lowest ever point. We are being asked to agree to give the Government power to make changes without going through proper scrutiny procedures. The Government are basically asking us to trust them, and we feel that we cannot trust pretty much anything they say right now, so more scrutiny is sensible.

When people who support leave talk about the European Union referendum and Brexit, they talk about taking power away from faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and returning it to Parliament. A lot of the legislation that is being considered just now does not return that power to Parliament in any meaningful way, and it does not allow Parliament proper scrutiny of the range of things that could come through. We are talking here about just one small area, but that problem has been highlighted in a huge number of things that have come out of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There is massive concern from members of the general public, who now understand what Henry VIII powers are—we are in unprecedented times. There has been a power grab from the Scottish Parliament, and this is one more small thing the Government are trying to do to take power away from where it should sit.

Given that the Government cannot command a majority in the House; given that they folded on SNP amendments to the Bill—that was, clearly, because the SNP amendments were wonderful, rather than because the Government did not have a majority—and given that they cannot get legislation through, the level of Executive power needs to be tested. We need to make the Government use their majority if they want to get powers through the House, rather than relying on the fact that because they are the Government, they can do what they like. That is why the SNP has tabled amendment 137, which would require the Government to ensure that more of the regulations made under clause 82 go through the proper scrutiny procedure, rather than relying on the Treasury to make some of them without proper scrutiny.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will speak briefly to the clause. The hon. Lady has set out the SNP’s reasons for tabling amendments 137 and 138. The official Opposition agree with those reasons, and it seems highly sensible to require regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have argued for that consistently in relation to our future relationship with the EU and the no deal process. We are concerned about the wholesale power grab that unfortunately appears to be continuing apace. We would support SNP Members if they decided to press their amendments to a vote.

We have tabled two amendments, and I am pleased to hear that the SNP support them. Under the Prime Minister’s proposed withdrawal agreement, the UK would initially, at least, continue to align itself with EU regulations, but little information has been provided alongside the clause to indicate how the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal would impact on Council directive 2017/1852, particularly if there was divergence later on. Similarly, the Treasury’s policy note offers no guidance about whether the EU’s resolution mechanism would be upheld for all future double taxation disputes in the event of a no deal Brexit.

That is of a piece with the general lack of information about the Government’s anticipated future relationship on tax matters with the EU. I have consistently asked whether we would seek to be a member of the code of conduct group, for example, and I have had no indication of the Government’s views on that matter. With that in mind, the Opposition have tabled amendment 149, which would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the impact of the powers under clause 82 in the event that the UK leaves the EU under a no deal Brexit or under the current withdrawal agreement—or whatever it becomes. It is unclear whether it will be changed or whether assurances will simply be produced in relation to it. Whatever happens, we may or may not be voting on it at some point, hopefully in the near future. Amendment 149 would require the Treasury to offer a clear indication of how the EU’s dispute resolution mechanism for double tax disputes would be maintained, and the likelihood of the different possibilities.

Amendment 150 would require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the revenue effects of the measure. The Treasury policy note states that the measure will raise no revenue and will have no economic impact on taxpayers. That is rather hard to believe, given that even the most benign change to the tax system can have far-reaching and unseen consequences. They may be unpredictable, but surely it would be better to say that than to say that the change will have no impact. The Chancellor would therefore be required to outline in the review the possibility of any unforeseen economic impacts, and the revenues that are likely to be raised from this measure after the Treasury makes regulations to use the powers.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Had we had a meaningful vote today—we are not going to have one—I would have voted with the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North. However, I find it a little strange that those who intend to vote against the agreement should criticise the Government for a no deal Brexit, because ultimately that is not the Government’s position.

There are about 800 statutory instruments for leaving the European Union. About 600 of them are negative, and a hundred and something are affirmative. It is perfectly possible for the Opposition to pick any number of negatives to pray against. If the Opposition have a problem with something, they can pray against it when it appears on the Order Paper and get a debate. There is a remedy for hon. Members’ concerns, but the reality is that so many of these things are modest and technical, and there are more important matters of principle for us to discuss. I do not think we want to spend a lot of time in this Committee or others debating minor, technical issues.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am on the European Statutory Instruments Committee, as are other Committee members. Sifting the proposed negative statutory instruments and changing some of them into proposed affirmatives has been a really interesting and useful process, which has shown us that the Government do not always make the right decision. Something like that for the long term would probably allay some of our concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

An interesting observation: as soon as “EU” appears in a clause, we suddenly have more interest from the Committee than for other measures. Ms Dorries, I will endeavour not to stray into too much detail around the pros and cons of the current deal and the White Paper and all that kind of stuff, and will stick to the clause.

The clause enables the Government to make changes to bring into force the regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the EU directive on tax dispute resolution mechanisms within the European Union. Double taxation arises when the same profits are taxed twice by two different tax authorities. It can create serious obstacles for businesses operating across borders by creating excessive tax burdens, leading to inefficiencies and an economic disincentive to trade. An effective tax dispute resolution system can help to alleviate double taxation.

The UK is a signatory to the convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises within member states of the European Union, known as the arbitration convention. The UK has also entered into bilateral tax treaties with every EU member state for the purpose of eliminating double taxation. Following a review, it was concluded that the mechanisms currently provided for in bilateral tax treaties and the arbitration convention might not achieve the effective resolution of double taxation disputes between member states in all cases in a timely manner. Consequently, the directive was adopted to build on existing systems. The UK supported the aims of the directive and agreed the adopted text in 2017.

The powers contained within the clause are necessary to enable the Government to introduce secondary legislation to implement the directive. Some proposed amendments would apply the draft affirmative procedure to all regulations made under the clause. As it stands, the Bill ensures that the scrutiny procedures applying to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate. The primary purpose of these powers is to give effect to an EU directive that has already been published. The exercise of the powers will therefore be a largely technical exercise—a point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), who also raised the important point that Committee members who wish to further debate a negative SI can of course can pray against it—to transpose the agreed text into UK law. It would not be appropriate to apply the affirmative procedure to all the regulations.

An amendment has also been tabled that asks for a review of the effect on the exercise of the power contained in the clause of the UK leaving the EU with or without a negotiated withdrawal agreement within two months of the Finance Act 2019 being passed. The Government’s intention is for a negotiated withdrawal agreement to apply to the UK, and therefore an implementation period, so that we can use the powers in the clause to implement the EU directive. As a responsible Government, we are also planning for the unlikely event of leaving the EU without a deal. Given the reciprocal nature of double tax dispute resolution, it is difficult to see how legislation implementing the directive can work in a no-deal scenario, but we do not think it would be beneficial to commit to producing a report so close to EU exit, and before the transposition deadline of the directive in June 2019.

A further amendment asks for a statement by the Chancellor on the revenue effects of the exercise of the power under the clause. The Government intend to publish a tax information and impact note for the draft regulations. That will include an assessment of the expected revenue effects of the regulations. I am pleased to say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole thoroughly approves of the tax information and impact notes regime which, as he knows, is rigorous and helpful. As a result there will be no need for the Chancellor to make an additional statement to the House.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not have much to add other than that I still want to press amendment 137 to a vote.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Briefly, the Minister referred to TIINs. I wonder whether, for the next Finance Bill, he will commit to ensuring clear linking from the Bill website to the different TIINs so that we can quickly see which one applies to each clause. It has been quite a waste of time having to search for them randomly.

As to the question whether the provisions should be examined using the affirmative procedure or should have to be prayed against using the negative procedure, I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Poole. However, we all know that, when measures are dealt with by the affirmative procedure by default, much greater attention needs to be given to them. That is the reality. Generally, I fear that attention is not always paid to matters that may superficially appear technical but that, when one delves into them, may be discovered to have a concrete impact on different groups. Even with the affirmative procedure, the level of debate on taxation matters has, I would argue, traditionally been quite limited. I note that, for the first time in Parliament’s history, we have recently had votes in relation to tax treaties. I was pleased that we motivated those votes, yet UK tax treaties with other countries have never been subjected to proper scrutiny in the House.

Many matters covered by Delegated Legislation Committees are not purely technical. In fact, this has been talked about by my hon. Friend, who represents Leeds—help me out. [Hon. Members: “Stalybridge!”] I am sorry, I am not great at the memory game. In talking recently about some of the no-deal planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has been talking about the potential for some of those measures to have such a significant impact that the Government themselves are not au fait with it. Given the time allotted, they seem to expect the Opposition to pass them with a rather cursory glance. I am afraid, therefore, that the suggestion that we already have a failsafe system for dealing with some of those significant matters is simply incorrect, so if the SNP presses amendment 137 to the vote, we shall support it. However, we will not press our amendments.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will shortly publish the clean air strategy, which I hope will answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s perfectly legitimate questions about the long-term scale of our ambition to support communities. All of us who live part of the time in cities or bring up our children in cities want a significant improvement in air quality, and that strategy will be ambitious.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I appreciate that the Minister is providing all this information in answer to issues raised by the amendments. Given that he has all the information, it would be great if he just put it into a review, as the amendments would require, so that we could see it written down in six months’ time.

[Robert Jenrick]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the information is mostly already in the public domain. It is not clear to me what information is not available. With respect to air quality, the Government will very shortly publish our ambitious clean air strategy. I encourage her and other hon. Members who, perfectly understandably, want to scrutinise our clean air commitments to pay attention to that document and scrutinise the Environment Secretary at that point. No doubt he will come to the House to make an announcement on the strategy.

The hon. Member for Norwich South also mentioned London. London already has a separate comprehensive funding settlement from the Department for Transport, which includes measures to deliver compliance with legal air quality limits. The Mayor has significant powers to take additional measures. Londoners also receive further funding for ultra low emission vehicles such as taxis. Indeed, measures in the Bill support the uptake of ultra low emission taxis. We took those measures a year early, as we will discuss later, and they have had a significant impact on the number of taxis on the streets of London. There are now between 500 and 600 electric or ultra low emission taxis that did not exist at the beginning of the year, incentivised by the measures taken by the Treasury. We are also supporting low emission buses and charging infrastructure. The Committee has already discussed the £200 million public investment in charging infrastructure, which we hope will spur at least a further £200 million of private investment. That will support charging infrastructure in all parts of the United Kingdom.

I hope hon. Members respect the fact that we consider the funding settlement for London’s roads as separate from that for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a long-standing convention. We occasionally provide additional money. For instance, in the Budget the Chancellor provided more than £400 million for potholes. He included London in that, so London boroughs are able to take advantage of that money, but in general the funding settlement for London’s roads is separate from the negotiation with respect to Highways England.

I urge the Committee to reject the amendments, as I believe the reports they would require are unnecessary. The changes outlined in the clause will ensure that the Government continue to support motorists with the cost of living while ensuring that they continue to make a fair contribution to the public finances. As a result of our decision to hypothecate VED revenues, we will see a major increase in investment in our strategic roads, which I hope will benefit everyone in all parts of the United Kingdom. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Syms]

Apart from paying the levy, the road haulage industry pays considerable sums of tax on fuel; it therefore pays quite a lot into the Exchequer for the provision of roads. I would make another important point: almost every good that we have in this country travels at some point on a road haulage vehicle. Almost all of what someone buys in a supermarket for Sunday lunch travels in such a vehicle. There is no such thing as a painless tax. If we raise the cost of vehicles delivering goods in this country, the costs are raised for supermarkets and businesses and that is passed on in the form of higher prices and inflation. There is a balance to be struck.

The other point is that the British economy has been growing since 2009-10. As it grows, there are more vehicles on the road, and that is a difficulty. The real way to deal with climate change is probably to crash the economy, so that unemployment shoots up and vehicles come off the roads. It is a problem that, if we have the economy growing, there are more vehicles on the road. On the whole, the solution is technological, both in the development of the levy—the hon. Member for Norwich South made one or two suggestions for that—and also in the engines and the information that people get this days. There has been a big improvement. The biggest incentive that there ought to be for the industry is to replace vehicles more regularly because, in the end, that will probably have more impact on climate change.

I do not think that the solution to this problem is to increase costs. There are technological solutions that I am sure will come to help with all of our concerns about climate change.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If we are going to disincentivise people from using HGVs or charge them more for using HGVs, we need to make sure that we have a positive route with alternative methods of transport. There has been a massive increase in the number of light goods vehicles, which is negative if we end up with older diesel models.

We could develop the rail freight network. I understand that it is pretty difficult for those who are looking to increase rail freight to get time on the lines because of the number of passenger trains. Solutions to assist that would be very helpful in ensuring that freight is moved around the UK in the least carbon-emitting way possible.

Subsection (6)(b) relates to Euro 6. It describes the definition of Euro 6, saying that it is as in the EC directive. I am keen for the Government to lay out what would happen about the development of new standards after Brexit and any transition period. Is it their intention that we would have our own standards on vehicle emissions? If so, how much does the Minister believe it will cost to assess vehicles? What would be the cost of UK-EU regulatory divergence, which will result in issues for car manufacturers?

Alternatively, do the Government intend that we should not diverge from using the European Commission directive standards? Obviously technology is developing and there will be new standards to which we should peg our decisions on tax rates. If the UK Government plan not to have their own assessment centre, with regulatory divergence, do they plan to continue to follow EC directives? What preparation are the Government making in that case to scrutinise or comment on the directives, given that we will not be in the room after Brexit, and will therefore not be able to influence the standards, either to support our car manufacturers or secure the best standards for the British public and get improved air quality?

I understand that the Minister may not have the answer at his fingertips, but I hope he can say something.

[Robert Jenrick]

I shall try to respond to the many points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole in part answered the challenge from the hon. Member for Norwich South as to whether hauliers pay their fair share. It is worth remembering that they pay a range of taxes, as my hon. Friend pointed out. They pay the levy that we are discussing and vehicle excise duties. They also pay tax on fuel. Taken as a package, hauliers pay a considerable amount of tax. British hauliers as an industry are highly taxed, going by European and international comparisons. The reforms mean that some hauliers will pay more. The VED system is based on both weight and axles, so to some extent it reflects wear and tear on the roads, although I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Norwich South that HGVs make a significant impact on the roads. I did not realise it was 100,000 times that of a Ford Focus, but that puts things in perspective.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the HGV levy was specifically hypothecated to tackle such issues as potholes and strategic roads. It is not. However, as I have described, the VED system will be, which will significantly increase the amount of investment that the country makes in roads at every level: £28.8 billion is the spending envelope for roads investment announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, and £25 billion of it will be spent on strategic roads in the road investment strategy that will be announced later next year. That will be about 170% of the first road investment strategy, so there is almost double the amount of investment going into roads to tackle congestion and improve strategic roads in all parts of the country.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made a valid point about the European standards. It is our intention to remain closely aligned to those. That seems sensible and it is our intention in a number of respects, such as climate change, emissions and carbon budgets, as is indeed set out elsewhere in the Bill. For example, we have not yet made a final decision on carbon trading, but we shall monitor it and review the matter. If I can give the hon. Lady any further information I will write to her to set out the position of the Department for Transport.

On the broader question of why we are not using the VED system for HGVs to encourage greater take-up of zero-emission or ultra-low emission HGVs, it comes back to the point made by the hon. Lady: currently there are very few commercially available ultra-low emission alternatives for HGV drivers, which prevents the broad uptake of new vehicles. Clearly, we would like to do all we can to stimulate the market and see rapid progress, but we have to be mindful of that. Through the Road to Zero strategy that was published earlier this year, the Government have committed to working with the industry to reduce HGV greenhouse gas emissions significantly by 2025. The strategy sets out the Government’s plans to use a variety of different tools to meet that commitment.

The hon. Member for Norwich South made a number of important points about HGVs and road safety. I will write to him on that and find out what information I can about DFT’s work, because it is important that we take note and see what can be done to improve road safety, particularly as the number of vehicles going down smaller roads and country lanes as a result of online shopping is becoming more important. Through the Road to Zero strategy and other initiatives, DFT is paying attention to how we can improve the last mile of delivery to tackle air quality and reduce the number of vehicles on our roads.

The clause introduces a lower rate of HGV levy for vehicles that meet the latest emission standard, and a higher rate for vehicles that do not. As we have discussed, the change will incentivise hauliers to move to cleaner, less-polluting vehicles. It is only right that everyone plays their part in protecting our natural environment so that we leave a cleaner, greener Britain for our children. HGVs currently account for approximately 20% of harmful nitrogen oxide emissions from road transport but only 5% of total miles travelled, so they will play an important part in tackling the problem.

The changes made by the clause will reduce HGV levy rates by 10% for vehicles that meet the latest emission standards, reflecting the fact that they generate 80% less NOx emissions than the older HGVs. The clause will also increase rates by 20% for HGVs that do not meet those standards. Many hauliers will pay less as more companies move to cleaner lorries—we have introduced it to improve air quality and not to raise revenue.

On amendments 115 to 118, to which the hon. Member for Norwich South spoke, the Government have published a tax information impact note outlining the impact assessment of these reforms, including the forecasted revenue effects, which have been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. I believe those amount to £25 million over the scorecard period. These reforms to the HGV levy are part of wider action by the Government to tackle challenges in the areas highlighted by the amendments. Isolating the impact of the HGV levy reforms would be extremely challenging and, I suspect, of limited use, as they cannot be separated from other actions the Government is taking in these areas.

The Government’s draft clean air strategy sets out an annual reporting process for the monitoring of air pollution, which is the appropriate mechanism for assessing the effectiveness of those changes and others over time, rather than introducing a new method to review it, as proposed by the amendments. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendments. The changes outlined in the measure will ensure that both foreign and domestic HGVs play their part in meeting the Government’s air quality targets.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 60, page 44, line 17, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of a reduction in air passenger duty rates from 1 April 2020 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(4) A review under subsection (3) must in consider the effects of a reduction on—

(a) airlines,

(b) airport operators,

(c) other businesses, and

(d) passengers.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of a reduction in air passenger duty.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 120, in clause 60, page 44, line 17, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made in subsection (1) and related matters specified in subsections (4) and (5) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the coming into force of the changes.

(4) The matter specified in this subsection is the revenue effects of the changes.

(5) The matter specified in this subsection is the effects of the changes on—

(a) CO₂ emissions,

(b) the United Kingdom’s ability to comply with its third, fourth and fifth carbon budgets,

(c) air quality standards,

(d) air travel demand, and

(e) air traffic movements.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue, environmental and certain other impacts of the changes made by Clause 60.

Amendment 121, in clause 60, page 44, line 17, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made in subsection (1) together with the matter specified in subsection (4) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the coming into force of the changes.

(4) The matter specified in this subsection is to assess whether the rate for privately-owned and privately-chartered jets is reflective of environmental costs relative to the other rates and bands of air passenger duty.”

This amendment would require the Government to review the extent to which rates of air passenger duty for privately-chartered and privately-owned aircraft reflect environmental costs.

Clause stand part.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will not speak for a terribly long time, because I am sure the Committee is not keen on being detained for any longer than necessary.

The devolution of air passenger duty has not been properly completed, so the Scottish Government are unable to put in place air departure tax, which we committed to introducing, or to make our proposed changes first to halve that tax and then to remove it completely. We are keen to do that because we believe it is important that we can attract people to visit, live and work in our country, and those steps were in the manifesto we were voted in on in 2016.

Complete devolution has not happened due to an issue with our exemption for the highlands and islands. I understand that the UK Government and the Scottish Government are working on that. It would have been great if it had been dealt with before, because we hoped to have air departure tax in place in April. It has not been dealt with, but I get the impression that people are still around the table trying to solve the issue, which is good news.

In lieu of APD being properly devolved and our having the powers to make our planned changes in Scotland, we support a UK-wide reduction in APD. That is why we tabled amendment 104, which would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to

“review the effects of a reduction in air passenger duty rates from 1 April 2020”—

we chose that date because the industry has asked us to ensure that any change in rates is not made immediately—

“and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months”.

The review would have to

“consider the effects of a reduction on—

(a) airlines,

(b) airport operators,

(c) other businesses, and

(d) passengers.”

One of the key issues for us is that the comparatively high taxes in the UK sometimes cause difficulties for airlines and airport operators. If we take into account VAT, air passenger duty and other taxes, the UK is one of the more highly taxed places to visit as a tourist. We are keen to see changes so that we can secure the routes we have and run more routes.

Given the remoteness of some communities in Scotland, it is important that we have good access to flights. I live in Aberdeen, which is about two and a half or three hours’ drive from Glasgow and Edinburgh. There are international flights out of Aberdeen, but not as many as I would like—there are lots of places we cannot get to unless we drive to Glasgow, Edinburgh or even further afield. I have previously looked at flying from Newcastle to get a better range of flights.

I would appreciate it if the Minister, if he cannot accept the amendment, talked a bit about what he thinks would be the impact on airlines, airport operators, other businesses and passengers of reducing air passenger duty. If he does not want to talk about that because it is not the Government’s policy to reduce air passenger duty, it would be interesting to hear why it is not their policy given my concerns. We are calling for a review because the amendment of the law resolution does not allow us to change it in a serious way. I hope I have laid out the Scottish National party’s position clearly.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

With your leave, Mr Howarth, I will speak to amendments 120 and 121, and press them to a vote if necessary, before moving on to other significant questions that we feel need answering in relation to the clause. As numerous environmental non-governmental organisations, scientists and even the chair of the Committee on Climate Change have observed, the Government are failing to tackle the climate crisis that is already upon us, and we believe that that is reflected in their policy on air travel. There is an awkward mismatch between our world-leading climate change legislation and our policy and prevailing political attitudes towards aviation.

The purpose of amendment 120 is to force the Government to share with Parliament the impact, or the lack thereof, of their proposed changes to air passenger duty on a variety of environmental concerns. The Committee will be aware that the projected impact of climate change poses severe risks, not just to the natural environment but to the prosperity of the British nation and the welfare of the people we represent in the House.

Aviation has a significant and growing impact on climate change. Emissions from the sector rose by 1.2% in 2016. It currently represents about 7% of the UK’s total emissions yet, on current projections, that figure will reach 25% by 2050 as a result of increases in aviation demand and carbon reduction in other sectors. That is because aviation currently enjoys a uniquely generous target under our national framework for reducing emissions through to 2050—namely, it is not expected to make any contribution in our carbon budgets to those reductions, and is instead required to conform to a level of emissions in 2050 that are no higher than 2005 levels, which is 37.5 megatonnes of carbon dioxide. That is known as the Committee on Climate Change planning assumption for aviation. That generous target is in recognition of the difficulty of decarbonising air travel through technology and operational improvement, and of the utility and social value of air travel for those who are lucky enough to use it.

Department for Transport aviation forecasts show that UK aviation emissions are currently on course to exceed even that generous limit, thus potentially jeopardising our ability to meet our overall climate change targets in the form of the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. The Committee on Climate Change has repeatedly called on the Government to develop a robust domestic mitigation policy framework for international aviation emissions for flights taking off from UK airports. Most recently, its 2017 and 2018 progress reports in Parliament highlighted the need for a new strategy and new policies to ensure UK aviation emissions are at about 2005 levels in 2050. In its 2018 assessment of the Government’s clean growth strategy, it warned that they are falling far short of the necessary action. It noted that no progress has been made on this requirement.

The Committee on Climate Change is currently working to update its advice to the Government on mitigating aviation emissions. It is due to report on that in the spring—we await that with interest. One aspect of its guidance that is unlikely to change and is highly salient to the clause is the recognition that the UK’s participation in international mitigation programmes for aviation emissions, such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s CORSIA—carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation—agreement to offset growth from 2020 and the EU’s emissions trading scheme will simply not be sufficient to keep UK aviation emissions within safe limits, as defined by the Committee on Climate Change.

Likewise, even if some fairly heroic assumptions are made about technology, operational improvements and the uptake of genuinely sustainable biofuels, the projected growth in demand for air travel is expected to outstrip these efficiency gains, causing emissions to rise above the safe limit. In 2009, the Committee on Climate Change advised the Government that:

“Deliberate policies to limit demand below its unconstrained level are therefore essential if the target is to be met.”

That has remained its formal position ever since.

The statutory advice to Government by the committee—renowned, by the way, as among the best climate change advisers in the world—is therefore that the growth in demand for UK air travel must be limited if our climate change targets are to be met. That is clear. However, no Government, least of all this one, has yet proposed any such policies. On the contrary, this Government have acted to remove constraints to growth in UK air traffic, such as by approving a third runway at Heathrow Airport without any corresponding measures to meet climate change commitments.

That is why we seek through amendment 120 to compel the Government to review air passenger duty, its effect on the demand for air travel and the consequent effect on greenhouse gas emissions. That is not to say that APD is the only lever that the Government have, but it is incumbent on them to make it clear how they will achieve the climate objectives agreed by consensus of the House. Perhaps the Minister will answer some questions—I am sure the Committee on Climate Change will be interested in hearing the answers.

What impact do APD rates have on demand today? How high would APD rates need to be, or what other measures would have to be in place, to constrain growth in emissions to within the safe limits advised by the Committee on Climate Change? Was that even a consideration of the Government when developing the Bill? Assuming that the Minister agrees it is indeed the Government’s goal, he might say that APD is not the best or most equitable route to achieve that goal, but we need to be clear that there is another route. The answers we hope to receive will help us all as legislators to decide whether APD and the suggested rate changes are indeed an effective mechanism to achieve the Government’s stated policy, or whether alternative measures would be more economically efficient and fiscally progressive.

We understand that limiting growth in demand for air travel is politically fraught, and that important social justice dimensions must be considered when designing any policies to achieve that aim. The issue, however, cannot be ducked forever. The Government have been, and continue to be, remiss in their duties by failing to make any assessment of the potential for different fiscal measures or other policy approaches to constrain UK aviation emissions in line with Committee on Climate Change guidance.

Modal shift from air to rail is an important feature of nearly all decarbonisation scenarios intended to deliver zero net emissions by the middle of the century, as per the UK commitment under the Paris agreement. At the moment, however, it is much cheaper to travel from London to Edinburgh by plane than by train. That is in part a product of the chronic failure of Britain’s ill-advised experiment with the privatisation of our railways, but there is an argument that it is also due to tax advantages enjoyed by aviation over other modes of transport, which brings us back to the clause.

Under international air service agreements, it is prohibited to tax aviation fuel—an anachronism from the earliest days of international aviation, when only a handful of passenger planes were in the sky and Governments sought to do all they could to nurture this exciting new economic sector. Seventy years later, more than 23,000 aircraft are in the global fleet, and yet this highly mature industry continues to enjoy tax-free fuel, a perk it has retained through a combination of lobbying and the structural difficulties of levying a tax on an activity that, by its nature, crosses national boundaries.

That anomaly is the subject of intense debate in France, where motorists are rightly pointing out the gross disparity between the high rates of duty in the form of a carbon tax levied on petrol and diesel at the pump, and the total absence of taxation on aviation fuel. Former French environment Minister, Nicolas Hulot, last week joined calls for kerosene to be taxed. Serving members of the French Government say that they are now speaking with the European Commission.

In addition to duty-free fuel, airline tickets, planes, parts, repairs and fuel are all zero-rated for VAT, alongside items such as baby clothes and wheelchairs. There is also the duty-free shopping in airports. Given that history, the price of air travel does not reflect the environmental damage caused by flight. Taxing air travel appropriately is clearly a difficult political problem to solve, and I want to make it clear that we do not advocate that such travel should become a privilege available only to the rich. However, it is important to understand the social justice dimensions of the challenge clearly.

APD has been criticised in the past as a blunt instrument. That may be true, but it is overall a fiscally progressive tax in the sense that it is mostly collected from households at the upper end of the income spectrum. Government survey data suggests that about half of British residents do not take any flights in a given year, while about a fifth say they never fly. Research suggests that 70% of all flights by UK residents are taken by 15% of the population—the so-called frequent fliers. That group probably includes many people in this room. Only 1% of the general population fly more than seven times a year, but the richest 5% of households fly 13 times a year. Growth in demand for air travel is likewise being driven by the UK’s wealthiest residents. Perhaps the Minister can share any official figures the Government hold.

In any event, to avoid catastrophic global warming, we must collectively limit carbon emissions from aviation. Ordinary people taking occasional family holidays or visiting relatives abroad should not be the priority for any policy designed to curb demand growth.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for the amendments. Given that more information is better, we are happy to support them. For the avoidance of doubt, I would love to stop flying every week. An independent Scotland would mean we could do that, and it would reduce our carbon footprint.

[Clive Lewis]

The hon. Lady makes a good point—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

I will respond to as many comments as I can. I will come to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but we agreed and legislated to devolve air passenger duty to the Scottish Government. The delay in so doing is unfortunate—it is not what we wished to happen—but it is a result of the Scottish Government’s asking us to postpone the implementation of devolution. They did so for the perfectly understandable reason that they wished to pursue the measure with respect to the highlands and islands, but it was essentially their decision, which we respected in agreeing to postpone the turning on of devolution, if that is the right phrase, at their suggestion.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Yes, but the UK Government were trying to hand APD over in such a way that the highlands and islands exemption would no longer exist, so it would have been completely deficient and would not have operated in the way we hoped or, presumably, the way it was intended to work when its devolution was first mooted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

I want to raise a couple of things before we vote on amendments 120 and 121. The Committee on Climate Change has clearly stated that we are heading towards a substantial breach of the generous headroom that has been provided for aviation in the UK. The Government are going to overshoot that, to use a pun. There is a pressing climate emergency on this planet. As we speak, millions of people—many of them in the world’s poorest countries—are already being affected by climate change. My dad is from Grenada, and he has retired there. People there, and in the West Indies generally, cannot get insurance as a result of the hurricanes that destroy vast swathes of the islands year in, year out, because of climate change. I feel as though we are hearing once again from the Government about business as usual, even though a climate emergency is taking place.

I understand the APD. It is not designed as an environmental tax or a demand management tool; it is a revenue raiser. Given that we find ourselves heading towards a breach of the headroom that the Committee on Climate Change has provided, surely the Government should be looking at ways to control and push down demand for flights, so that we can begin to make a real impact on our commitments to tackling climate change. Will the Minister tell the Committee whether he plans to join our French counterparts in lobbying for tax reform on kerosene, as they will shortly talk about with the EU Commission? It seems to me that the aviation industry has enjoyed these 70-year-old tax perks and is now an established sector, but one that has yet to fully play its part in tackling climate change. This country can show leadership on that, starting with the Treasury.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 120, in clause 60, page 44, line 17, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made in subsection (1) and related matters specified in subsections (4) and (5) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the coming into force of the changes.

(4) The matter specified in this subsection is the revenue effects of the changes.

(5) The matter specified in this subsection is the effects of the changes on—

(a) CO₂ emissions,

(b) the United Kingdom’s ability to comply with its third, fourth and fifth carbon budgets,

(c) air quality standards,

(d) air travel demand, and

(e) air traffic movements.”.—(Clive Lewis.)

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue, environmental and certain other impacts of the changes made by Clause 60.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 136 would require an assessment of the impact of the tax changes in the clause on the behavioural impacts on waste disposal operators of all types. The clause represents a series of missed opportunities by the Government to adjust and strengthen landfill tax in ways that would help to address a number of environmental and disposal problems and would drive forward the roll-out of a closed-loop resource economy across the UK by increasing recycling and reuse of goods and materials that any responsible society should not be throwing away.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech in which he is talking about a lot of sensible measures to reduce waste. I just want to say that the matter covered in this aspect of the Bill is devolved, so if he presses the amendment to a vote, the Scottish National party will not take part in it.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the hon. Lady—her point is taken on board.

Such a beneficial undertaking would help both businesses and households to reduce drastically their waste streams and so cut their work-related and living costs. It would also go a very long way to helping the UK to meet its energy and greenhouse gas emission targets on the way to becoming a zero-waste, zero-carbon economy. As well as securing existing jobs and helping to create many new ones in the reuse, repair and recycling sectors, adopting the amendments that we are calling for would undoubtedly help to protect urban, suburban and natural environments where illegal waste dumping continues.

Will the Minister tell us how he means to address the very serious concerns of the Environmental Industries Commission and its members about the growing gap between the lower rate and the higher rate of this tax? The existing gap is already causing significant problems in the industry, with some operators presenting for the lower rate inert waste that actually contains asbestos fibres and therefore should be subject to the higher rate. How does the Minister intend to address that imbalance? In the EIC’s view, which is shared by Labour and a number of prominent environmental and countryside non-governmental organisations, the gap should be closed and not made wider, so that the tax acts as a deterrent to illegal waste disposal of all types and so benefits the public purse and society at large in significant environmental ways.

That being the case, in the absence of significant assurances from the Minister, we will struggle to support the clause as it stands. However, I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to provide us both with those assurances and some answers to the questions that we have posed. I look forward to his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The clause makes changes to ensure that penalties may be raised against businesses registered for the soft drinks industry levy that do not submit a quarterly return or fail to submit a quarterly return on time. The changes ensure that a penalty can still be raised for non-payment of the soft drinks industry levy in the event that certain provisions in the Bill are enacted.

The soft drinks industry levy was announced at Budget 2016. The levy commenced on 6 April 2018 and has been successful in its stated objective of driving reformulation, to such an extent that over half of all drinks by volume that would have been in scope of the levy have now been reformulated, and in fact were reformulated even before the tax came into effect. This measure will support that success by allowing penalties to be issued for late returns and non-submission of returns for accounting periods ending after 1 April 2019, should they be required.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate what the Minister says about the effects of the soft drinks industry levy, but it still does not apply to milk-based drinks. Will the Government consider extending the levy to milk-based drinks, given that it has been so successful?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. When we announced the policy, we said that we would consider milk-based sugary drinks in 2020, which is when more information, including Public Health England data, will be available to inform that decision. We have reiterated that commitment, so there will be a review in just over a year, which could lead to such a decision, although we have no plans to extend the levy at this moment.

The changes made by the clause will help to provide a proportionate and fair penalty regime and to drive compliance. The changes will affect only soft drinks industry levy-registered businesses that do not submit a quarterly return and payment by the due date. Furthermore, although the clause gives us the powers to act, at present there is no evidence of fraud or non-compliance with the soft drinks industry levy on any material scale.

Clause 67 makes changes to amend section 1 of the Isle of Man Act 1979, to add the soft drinks industry levy to the list of common duties. It will ensure that the movement of liable soft drinks between the UK and the Isle of Man will not be seen as either an import or an export under the levy, as long as the levy rates of the UK and the Isle of Man remain aligned. This change will have effect from 1 April next year.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

Finally, I urge hon. Members to vote for amendment 92, which would empower us and give us the information we need to help small businesses to cope better with VAT collection.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

First, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and I are two very different people. He is a lot taller, has dark hair and is a Conservative Member of Parliament. Lots of people have made this mistake over time. He also has very different views from mine on Brexit.

To follow up on some of the issues raised, I am comfortable supporting the Opposition amendment; it makes sense to ask for this information. A couple of matters were raised during the debate. It is important that reasonable VAT guidance is given to organisations. As we have previously discussed in Committee, people can only pay the correct tax if they understand how the tax system works. If they do not have the appropriate guidance, it is difficult for them to ensure that they pay the right VAT.

It is clear that the Government and HMRC are falling short in the information that they communicate to the companies and organisations that are expected to jump through these hoops. It would be useful if the Government looked at that and ensured that they improve the information they are providing to companies and organisations, so that they can better understand their liabilities and how to comply with them.

Lastly, in relation to discussions around the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned the changes from making tax digital and the impact of that on companies that are finding it more difficult to navigate the system. Another possible impact, depending on what happens with any withdrawal agreement, is that move from acquisition VAT to import VAT, which would also have a significant impact on companies, because they would have to pay significantly more money to allow them to do things differently.

I was pleased that the Government moved on that point after sustained pressure on them through the passage of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill. I appreciate that they agreed to put in place a deferment scheme in the event of no deal; that is positive. However, we do not yet know what the deal will look like. Could we have more commitment from the Government about smoothing that path, if there is to be change from acquisition to import VAT?

Obviously I would rather there was no change and we all stayed in a customs and VAT union, with common VAT as the preferred option. If there is to be any change, will the Government reassure us that companies that will be provided with as much support as they can, in order to make that change without the cash-flow impact suggested by organisations such as the British Retail Consortium?

[Mel Stride]

Before I get into more general points on the clause, I will turn to some specific issues raised by Members, starting with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. I entirely take her points about the distinction between her and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South. The differences are quite stark in all respects, though I am not sure to whose benefit that is.

The hon. Lady is entirely right to suggest that we need good guidance on these issues. I should point out that a primary focus of the proposed change is to ensure that we do not, under the existing arrangements, have a number of construction companies falling due to VAT and going over the threshold. That does bring unwanted complexity for those who would not otherwise be in that situation. It is worth bearing in mind that the reason behind the measure is trying to avoid drawing ever more businesses in that sector into the VAT regime.

The hon. Lady also reminded us of the discussions that we had at length on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, when most of us were all together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is not our position that the UK should leave the common VAT area, but we support both Labour amendments, because it is sensible that we have more information about all these provisions, so that the House can take better-informed decisions.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention and entirely agree with it.

On the access of financial services to the single market once we leave the EU, under the terms of what the Government have negotiated—that single market access will almost certainly be denied unless the equivalence provisions prove adequate, although most people expect them not to be—the Government’s advice to firms in the UK is to set up subsidiaries in the EU. It was reported to me in meetings yesterday in the City that there is concern that when those subsidiaries are created, the connected UK entities will not be able to enter VAT groups in the UK, which would therefore trigger a substantial tax liability in order for firms to comply with the Government’s own advice on market access to the EU. The Minister may not be able to answer that now, but I want to put it on the record.

I call on all Committee members to support both amendments today so that we can get a clear and full picture of the wider impact of the measures on the future VAT policy approach outside the EU and on closing our own VAT gap here in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

As long as that? Ten minutes? My word.

I should point out that, under a more active Government—one not simply going through the motions—these measures would already have been taken into account, acted upon and been on offer for proper scrutiny during this debate. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister will see the benefits of the review as set out in our amendment and agree that it is worth while—or that Members will choose to support amendment 98 to see that it is implemented. That brings our amendment on this particular matter to a close. Cheers.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I rise to speak to amendment 103 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, but I would also like to speak a little more widely about the clause and the Labour amendments. First, I would like to ask the Minister a question about the post duty point dilution, which was in the Red Book. Hopefully, he can answer or get inspiration during the course of the debate. The changes do not appear to be in the legislation, so it would be useful if the Minister could explain when the legislative changes to post duty point dilution will take effect. I understand that the hope is that it will be put into legislation to be enacted in April 2020, but it would be useful if we could have an idea of the legislative process to ensure that those changes are made. I have been lobbied heavily on this by one of my constituents. I know it is important to a lot of people and that the Government have to their credit committed to making changes in the autumn Budget 2017.

Returning to our earlier discussion, I am not clear what the Government are trying to do with the changes to alcohol taxation. Are they trying to incentivise good behaviour; are they trying to disincentivise bad behaviour; or are they trying to generate revenue for the Exchequer? It is important for the Government to clarify that and accept the Labour amendment on the revenue impact on the Exchequer and on public health. That would make a big difference, because we would be clear about the Government’s intentions and what the Government expect to achieve.

On public health, people who want to get drunk quickly often drink high-strength ciders. It is important the changes focus on people who are not drinking for pleasure in the main, but who are drinking to get as drunk as they possible can. Those are the alcohol deaths we are trying to combat in Scotland with the new minimum unit pricing we introduced, which is a clear and well-intentioned public health change. Minimum unit pricing is all about making sure that high-strength alcohols that can be bought very cheaply are increased in price, so that people cannot get hold of them as easily. We predict that we will see a reduction in alcohol deaths as a result of the changes to legislation in Scotland.

What do the Government expect will be the impact of their legislation, particularly the extreme impact on people who are dying from alcohol misuse? What numbers do they expect to see as a result of the changes? If the Government accept Labour’s amendments, it would be useful if the review included the number of people whom they expect to save so that we can measure them against that.

Lastly, it is important that the Government tax this stuff and increase the tax rates as inflation increases. We want the Government to take a step back and have a holistic look at the entire system and explain why they are taxing things in the way that they are, rather than tweak and bodge and make changes year on year, as often happens in this place, so that we end up with something that is unwieldy and does not fulfil the intentions of the Bill in the first place, let alone the intentions of the world as we see it. Will the Minister provide answers?

[Sir Robert Syms]

The Government have sensible policies on this. We debated an amendment earlier today about securing jobs in the North sea when there are relatively few jobs on oil rigs. The hospitality industry is one of the biggest employers in the United Kingdom. It is also very important for the tourist industry. The Government have been constantly keeping taxes under review to see what gets a reasonable amount of income and what is fair for consumers.

We also have to understand that we have been through a difficult economic period and incomes have not risen as much as one would like. One of the disadvantages of putting up some of these prices is that it will affect not middle class people, but some of those on the lowest incomes who have every right to enjoy a drink. I therefore think that the Government policy is perfectly sensible.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree that the hospitality industry is incredibly important, particularly to tourism. However, the oil and gas industry supports 135,000 jobs and is also very important to the livelihoods it supports.

[Sir Robert Syms]

I am sure it is, but I suspect the hospitality industry is 10 times that. The other factor about the drinks industry generally is that it is very regionally diverse, with the scotch industry in Scotland, and wine, cider and beer producers. We all have representations from the owners of breweries, which employ people and are sometimes very important parts of the local economy. We have all had representations from people who run public houses, which are also central to the community. One of the worst things that has happened over the past few decades is the number of public houses that have closed, which has had a material impact on many people and communities. This is a matter of balance, and the Government may be wrong or they may be right, but I think they are more likely to be right because their approach is more likely to secure jobs in the hospitality and brewing industries, and to achieve a proper balance so that people can enjoy a meal or a drink out.

There is a serious alcohol issue, but the producers of wine and beer label things very clearly to show the strength of alcohol. There is a strong “Drinkaware” campaign, so it is not difficult for people to find out the impact of alcohol, but we know there is a hard core of heavy drinkers, many of whom use A&Es and ambulances. It costs about half a million pounds a year to keep an ambulance on the road, and many of them are disproportionately used by people who abuse alcohol. The focus, if there is any focus, ought to be on addiction services and trying to intervene with those who abuse alcohol rather than on the vast majority of people who enjoy a drink.

The hon. Member for Bootle, in his amusing speech—we will miss him on Thursday when he is no doubt raising a cheer to Cicero in whatever he is doing—noted that the industry contributes substantially to the Treasury. Some of those billions of pounds have to go to the NHS because of drinking, but the industry also generates a lot of money for good causes and things that the Government need to provide.

This is a matter of balance, and I think the Government have it right. There may come a time when prices have to go up. If incomes start to rise more substantially—we hope that will be a factor in a few years and that there is evidence that pay is picking up a bit—it may be time to review the taxes, but I think the Government have got this one right.

[Robert Jenrick]

I gather there may be a vote in a few moments’ time, but I will begin by addressing, in no particular order some of the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. We are interested in the Scottish and indeed the Welsh Government’s actions on minimum unit pricing. It is fair to say that the jury is still out on whether that has been effective, but we will be watching with interest, as will the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, and that will inform the decisions we take at future Budgets.

The hon. Lady asked about post duty point dilution. This is an issue that she has rightly highlighted, and a number of the producers who are likely to be affected by this and who are based in the UK will no doubt be asking the question she has asked. We intend to give this further consideration and lay draft legislation on L-day next year, in the early summer of 2019, with a view to legislating on it in the autumn Budget 2019 and its coming into force from April 2020. While I have spoken to some of the small number of British producers who will be affected and I note their concerns, this is a question of fundamental fairness in the duty system.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Perhaps I did not express myself very well. My constituents are lobbying for the change to be made; they are not lobbying against the change being made. I was asking when this would come in, because they are hoping for it to come in.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. After two days in the reassuring embrace of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Committee has a brief interlude.

Clause 32 will make changes to end, from April 2020, first-year allowances for all products on the energy technology list and the water technology list, including the associated first-year tax credit. The environmental first-year allowances aimed to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly technology. Capital expenditure by businesses on plant and machinery normally qualifies for tax relief by way of capital allowances. Environmental first-year allowances allow 100% of the cost of an investment in qualifying plant and machinery to be written off against taxable income in the year of investment, providing a cash-flow benefit. The first-year tax credit provides a tax credit for loss-making businesses that invest in qualifying items.

The first-year allowance was introduced in 2001 for products on the energy technology list, and in 2003 for products on the water technology list. However, the allowances have made the tax system more complex, and there is very limited evidence that they have driven greater uptake of such technologies. A report by the Office of Tax Simplification found significant barriers to accessing the allowances, including the administrative burden of making claims. Government analysis suggests that less than 25% of energy managers would increase investment in energy-saving technology because of the allowances, while fewer than 20% of manufacturers report a positive impact on sales.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Minister makes an interesting case, but it is what I would have expected as part of the report required by amendment 75. Will the Government accept the amendment and provide us with the information in report form, rather than having the Minister stand up here and tell us?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will come to the amendment in a moment, but I hope I will be able to reassure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that we have already given the matter a great deal of thought and spoken to a number of stakeholders in the sector. Our actions are led by precisely the businesses that benefit from the existing reliefs.

For 99% of businesses, all plant and machinery is already eligible for full relief under the annual investment allowance, so the enhanced capital allowances provide no additional incentive. Smaller businesses such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers have little if any reason to make use of those reliefs. The Government therefore believe that there are better ways to support energy efficiency.

The changes made by clause 32 will end the first-year allowances and the first-year tax credits from April 2020. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about little notice, there is a significant amount of notice, beginning with the Budget this year, and these first-year tax rates not ending until April 2020. That is the point at which the industrial energy transformation fund will be available. Those rates will still be available until then, which will give businesses the time they need to prepare for change. The Government will look to lay secondary legislation in 2019 and update the lists of eligible technology, so that they can still be used and will be updated to include the most efficient technologies in the meantime. There is no sense in which those measures will fall behind with technological change.

To give some extra detail on some of the flaws with the current first-year allowance for energy technology, we found very low levels of awareness, as I have already described. Manufacturers estimate that less than a quarter of their customers are even aware of the scheme, and it provided little additionality. As I have set out, fewer than 25% of energy managers reported that the scheme influenced their investment decisions, and fewer than 20% of manufacturers reported that, if they did use it, it made a positive impact on their sales and businesses.

Many tax advisers reported to us that their clients decided to make claims after they had chosen to invest in efficient technology, so it did not have the impact that we would have hoped. Small companies are much less likely than larger companies to benefit, and 99% of companies would already be able to make such investments under the annual investment allowance. A 2017 survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that only a quarter of small business owners were even aware of the scheme.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Is the Minister not making the case for more consultation in advance of any tax changes? Clearly, this tax change did not achieve what the Government thought it would. The consultations and information asked for are even more vital if the Government are making mistakes and not achieving what they had hoped.

[Robert Jenrick]

It is pretty clear from the evidence I have just laid out that the current tax reliefs do not work. We are making the changes required to ensure that smaller businesses, through the increased annual investment allowance, will have the allowance they need to make these investments. We will now work closely with other businesses, through the design of the industrial energy transformation fund, and a full consultation on that will be launched at the beginning of next year. We encourage the hon. Lady, businesses and other members of the Committee to take part in that consultation, as we design the successor fund to these reliefs.

The Government remain committed to increasing environmental efficiency, and the savings from ending first-year allowances and tax credits will be used to fund the industrial energy transformation fund. That fund will help businesses with high energy use to cut their energy bills and reduce their carbon emissions, by supporting investment in energy efficiency and other innovative decarbonisation technologies that may become available in the years ahead. Those could include, for example, investment in carbon capture and storage, or fuel-switching technologies. However, decisions on the scheme design, including eligibility and the technologies that will be supported, will be subject to the consultation with industry that I have just described. Establishing the scheme will fulfil our manifesto commitment to establish an energy efficiency scheme for industry, and that has been widely welcomed, including by groups such as EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation; UK Steel and the Energy Intensive Users Group. Since the Budget, I have spoken to a number of heavy users of energy, including car manufacturers, who all welcome this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I regret to inform the Committee that we are reaching the end of the section of the Bill relating to capital allowances.

The capital allowances regime clearly requires a holistic review by the Government. We all agree that we want to make the UK a competitive and attractive place for businesses. As we contemplate our departure from the EU, that requirement has never been more pressing. Yet, these measures all come at a cost. The annual investment allowance increase will cost £1.24 billion in its first three years. By 2023-24, the buildings and construction expenditure allowance will cost over half a billion pounds. They need an assessment in the round so we can aggregate these reliefs against the corporation tax reductions and see what the package really looks like, what the economic justification is for these changes, and whether that money should be reprioritised elsewhere.

With the UK becoming such an outlier among other developed countries in relation to corporation tax, with an eventual rate of corporation tax well below the average of OECD countries, we need to ensure that our overall package of measures is properly targeted. That is why Labour is moving new clause 5, which would oblige the Government to present an analysis in a year’s time of the full effect of these changes and the corporation tax alterations. We need to understand what this package looks like in the round, whether it is providing value for money, and what the real cost is to the taxpayer in aggregate. Only then can we make a judgment on whether this is the right and appropriate way to spend the money, when the UK has so many other priorities after eight difficult years of austerity.

That is why I urge Members to vote for new clause 5, which would obligate the Government to publish a review in a year’s time. By then, we will be in a position to see how these allowances have been taken up, as well as to make some initial judgments on Britain’s business investment landscape post our exit from the European Union.

Clause 34 will amend the Capital Allowances Act 2001 to clarify that land alterations qualify for capital allowances where plant or machinery is installed that qualifies for the same allowances. It helps to clarify the qualifications in place for businesses that seek to carry out such work. The Opposition have no particular objection to ending the mismatch, but this is another tidying-up measure. Will the Minister provide some insight on whether any further such measures are to come? How was the inconsistency brought to the Government’s attention? Is there any estimate of the cost associated with this measure? There should be greater transparency and understanding of exactly where such a measure has come from. If there has been pressure from a particular sector, that needs to be clear. Opposition amendment 79 calls for the Government to present to the House a report on any consultation undertaken on these provisions. I call on Members to vote for this amendment to provide proper transparency on process to the House, so that the cost and benefit can be properly scrutinised and we can assess the motivations for bringing about this change.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is a pleasure to speak in this Committee and to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Dorries. I want to focus my comments on new clause 2, but if the Labour party presses amendment 79 or new clause 5 to a vote, we will support it. What we are trying to do in new clause 2 is not dissimilar from what Labour is trying to do in new clause 5—we are just going about it in slightly different ways. Putting the two new clauses together would make a lot of sense, to encompass what we are both trying to achieve.

New clause 2 looks at clauses 29 to 34 and schedule 12 to the Bill and provides for a review of the changes to capital allowances. It asks for a number of reviews and for us to measure against a number of outcomes that we hope the Government will seek through any changes they make to capital allowances or through having a capital allowances system in the first place.

The first review is of business investment. What changes do the Government expect for business investment as a result of all the changes made to capital allowances? Any tax system tries to do three things: disincentivise undesirable behaviour, incentivise desirable behaviour and get money for the Exchequer. It is important to consider whether the legislation does any of those things in the way we would hope. Business investment is key; surely, the point of capital allowances is to incentivise good business investment. Therefore, it is reasonable that the Government come back and explain to us the potential changes they expect to business investment resulting from their legislative changes.

The second review is of employment. That is important; the Government are never off their high horse about the level of employment they say we have. If they hope the changes will make a difference to employment levels, they should tell us how much change they expect so that we can measure their performance against whether that has been achieved. We just heard that the previous tax allowances put in place for first-year allowances did not have the desired effect, and the Government have to change them. Therefore, it would be useful to know what the Government expect to happen to the number of employed people as a result of their changes. We can measure the Government against that and say whether the measure has failed or has achieved what they intended to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I would like to drill down a little on the point about the customs union. As I read the withdrawal agreement and the future framework, the Government have negotiated single market access that is tariff-free and quota-free and that carries no rules of origin checks. Effectively, the benefits of the customs union are in that package. What more does the hon. Lady want?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The other day, I was talking about the benefits of being in the customs union to a trade expert, who explained to me in quite simple—but incredibly useful—terms the difference between being in a customs union and not being in one. Within a customs union, the starting point is the assumption that the appropriate tariff has already been paid on every good, whereas outside the customs union the assumption is that that has to be proved. Even without rules of origin checks, we would be starting from a different point of view. However, I am not clear that the withdrawal agreement has agreed that there will not be rules of origin checks. I do not understand how the UK Government can say in their financial analysis paper that they will have a free trade agreement with China but no rules of origin checks for goods travelling between the UK and the EU.

[Vicky Ford]

The Government negotiating team have offered briefings on this deal to every Member of the House from every party. Establishing the answer to those rules of origin—

[The Chair]

Order. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing today.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was just looking to wind up—[Laughter.] That is not entirely what I meant.

We are seeking more information from the Government about what they intend to achieve. It is incredibly important to do this in the context of Brexit, and it is incredibly important that companies know what the Government are trying to achieve, so that they are aware of what they are being incentivised or disincentivised to do and what the Government’s changes to capital allowances are trying to encourage them to do. If more information could be provided to us and the general public, that would be hugely appreciated. I hope that we can vote on this new clause when we come to the votes at the end.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Aberdeen North for their contributions, and I will endeavour to pick up the various points that have been made.

Since 1994, capital allowances have not been available for most buildings and structures, including aqueducts, bridges, canals, roads and tunnels. It has been long understood by HMRC—and by taxpayers—that nobody can claim plant and machinery allowances where the expenditure relates to an excluded structure or building. Specifically, nobody can claim capital allowances for expenditure on altering land for the purpose of installing an asset that is excluded from allowances. Expenditure on buildings and structures is excluded in this way by sections 21 and 22 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001.

To answer one of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, doubt has been cast on that principle by a recent tribunal decision, which HMRC is appealing against. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that the law remains clear and that plant and machinery allowances can be claimed only in relation to alterations of land to install qualifying assets. The clause clarifies the legislation to provide certainty going forward and to protect the Exchequer from potential spurious and windfall claims for historical expenditure.

The clause should be read alongside the introduction of a new structures and buildings allowance, which in time will become a very substantial relief that fills a significant gap in our capital allowances system. Taxpayers who alter land for the purpose of installing a structure or building should claim this new allowance—we covered it when debating clause 29—and should not claim the plant and machinery allowance.

As I have said, the clause clarifies that expenditure on land alterations cannot qualify for capital allowances unless it relates to the installation of qualifying plant and machinery. No expenditure on structures or buildings, as defined in sections 21 and 22 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001, will be counted as plant. This will apply to all capital allowance claims made from 29 October 2018 onwards, but not to claims already in the system—to do otherwise would be unfair. However, as this does nothing more than restore the commonly held interpretation of the law, we do not consider it to disadvantage any company that has already incurred expenditure. If we did not make this amendment, there is a strong probability that some businesses might make spurious or windfall claims, as there is no time limit for making a capital allowances claim.

Amendment 79 seeks a legislative commitment by the Government to report on any consultations that are undertaken on this measure. However, the measure addresses a potential source of ambiguity in the capital allowances legislation and protects revenue that we need for our vital public services. That needs to be done quickly to maintain a level playing field and to provide certainty for businesses incurring expenditure in this area. The Government’s view is that this measure is not best supported by consultation, which would delay this change. In any case, it restores the interpretation of the law that HMRC and taxpayers commonly understood before the recent tribunal case.

New clause 2 aims to commit the Government to report on the impact of the capital allowances changes in the Bill, including under a number of different EU withdrawal scenarios, as well as on the impact on different parts of the United Kingdom. The Office for Budget Responsibility has provided its independent view of the impact of these policies, in particular on business investment, in its “Economic and fiscal outlook” report, in the box titled “The economic effects of policy measures”. When available, HMRC will publish updated statistics on capital allowances claimed, split by asset type and by industry. Data on capital allowances claimed are based on where companies are registered rather than where the activity itself takes place. Requiring businesses to provide the more detailed information that this report would require about the precise location of their expenditure would represent a significant new administrative burden.

On the impact of the policies in different EU exit scenarios, the capital allowances package in the Bill is intended to boost business investment in all scenarios. The Government have already laid before Parliament a written ministerial statement under the title “Exiting the European Union: publications”, representing cross-Whitehall economic analysis on the long-term impacts of an EU exit on the UK economy, its sectors, nations and regions and the public finances. The document is available on gov.uk and from the Printed Paper Office. Committee members will be aware that I also answered an urgent question at length on this very matter.

New clause 5 is intended to commit the Government to assess the aggregate effects of the changes to corporation tax and capital allowances made under the Bill. However, that information is already largely set out in the public domain. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility certifies the Exchequer impact of all the measures in the Bill, set out in table 2.1 and table 2.2 of Budget 2018. When they are announced, the OBR will also provide its independent view of the impact of these policies on business investment in its “Economic and fiscal outlook” report, in the box titled “The economic effects of policy measures”.

Finally, every year HMRC will publish updated statistics breaking down corporation tax paid and capital allowances claimed. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment and new clauses, and I

commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Clause 36 and schedule 14 introduce a transferable tax history—TTH, as it has become known—mechanism, and clause 37 amends the petroleum revenue tax rules for retained decommissioning costs. Both measures will apply to oil and gas companies operating on the UK continental shelf, and to transactions that receive approval from the Oil and Gas Authority or relevant regulator on or after 1 November 2018.

These measures are designed to encourage investment in late-life oil and gas assets that are approaching the point of decommissioning, prolonging the life of the basin and sustaining jobs across the UK, but in particular in north-east Scotland. Decommissioning costs are generally incurred at the end of a field’s productive life, when taxable profits are not being generated. To provide tax relief for those costs, oil and gas companies within the UK’s ring fence tax regime can carry them back against taxable profits generated since 2002. That prevents decommissioning from being performed early for tax purposes, thereby helping to achieve the Government’s goal of maximising economic recovery of oil and gas.

When a new entrant without a history of taxable profits acquires an old field, there is a risk that the decommissioning costs of the field will exceed the taxable profits generated by the new owner, preventing effective tax relief via the traditional carry-back mechanism and leaving the buyer in a worse position than the seller would have been in. That can make old fields unattractive to new entrants and deter much-needed investment in this important industry. That is a growing problem in an ageing basin, but one that we now believe can be resolved by our innovative TTH measure.

The change to the PRT rules addresses the increasingly common scenario of a seller retaining some or all of a decommissioning liability after selling a field. The PRT system currently requires the seller to remain on the relevant production licence to receive tax relief for any retained costs. However, doing so often requires complex tax structuring that serves no particular purpose other than to protect the seller’s tax position.

The changes made by these measures will create the right environment for much-needed new investment in our older fields. They will introduce a TTH mechanism that provides new investors with the certainty that they require about the tax relief they will receive for decommissioning costs. That will allow new deals to proceed, injecting new energy into a basin that still has 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil remaining. Initial feedback from the industry has been extremely positive—this change is already well received internationally and is helping new deals to continue.

TTH will allow companies selling oil and gas fields to transfer some of their tax payment history to the buyers of those fields. The buyers will then be able to set the costs of decommissioning the field against the TTH to generate a repayment. It should be noted that that should not be an extra cost to the Exchequer, as the repayment only replaces what would otherwise have been made by the seller. It will level the playing field between sellers and buyers of oil and gas fields, encouraging investment by providing new entrants with certainty on the tax relief available for their decommissioning costs. The new investment into the basin as a result of TTH is expected to increase tax receipts from the sector by £75 million over the scorecard period.

The clause also makes changes to enable petroleum revenue tax relief when a seller retains a decommissioning liability. A tax deduction will now become available to the buyer where the seller subsequently incurs decommissioning expenditure or where the seller contributes to the buyer’s decommissioning costs. That will simplify the way that older oilfields can be sold to new investors and help to prolong their productive lives. Before turning to the amendments, I thank all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who participated in the discussions that led to this important measure, which we believe will help the community around Aberdeen in particular, but also those across the country.

Amendments 81 and 89 seek to amend the definition of a decommissioning security agreement within the TTH legislation in schedule 14. Decommissioning security agreements are specific commercial agreements that provide assurance to partners in a field for which funds will be available for decommissioning. The proposed changes to the definition would make the decommissioning security agreement required for a TTH election incompatible with the industry standard decommissioning security agreement, which, in our opinion, would make TTH elections impracticable and unworkable for the vast majority of our oil and gas fields, which rely on the well-established and respected industry standard agreement. TTH has been carefully designed to leverage estimates of decommissioning costs, which are already used in decommissioning security agreements, taking note of the history of the agreements. The agreements are confidential and, as one might imagine, highly commercially sensitive and are typically shared only between the joint venture partners and HMRC, in accordance with taxpayer confidentiality.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister tell us a little bit about the process that the Government went through in creating the Bill, and the work done between the Government and industry to ensure that the legislation works?

[Robert Jenrick]

Yes, I will turn to that. As the hon. Lady knows—she participated in and attended at least one meeting I held in Aberdeen with the Oil and Gas Authority and stakeholders—we have carried out a great deal of careful consideration and consultation with the industry, because TTH will succeed only if it works for both the buyers and the sellers. Our sole objective is not to raise revenue for the Exchequer but to extend the life of the basin and to create jobs and investment for an important part of the United Kingdom.

The new investment encouraged by TTH will prolong the life of the basin, which has 10 billion to 20 billion more barrels left, helping to protect the hundreds of thousands of jobs I have already mentioned. We believe that the amendments would introduce counterproductive additional requirements and inhibit the use of TTH. I urge the Committee to reject them. They may be well intentioned, but they would be contrary to the objective of the measure.

Amendment 84 would limit the maximum amount of tax history that a seller can transfer under a TTH election. The TTH legislation currently caps the maximum amount of tax history that can be transferred under a TTH election to double the decommissioning cost estimate agreed for a decommissioning security agreement. Decommissioning costs are inherently uncertain and can increase significantly for reasons outside the control of the operator and for reasons that were unknown at the time of the sale. For that reason, they are typically subject to a very large range of accuracy. For fields still years away from decommissioning, the range often includes a 100% cost increase. TTH has been designed to be compatible with this regularly accepted range of estimates and to ensure that the buyer cannot end up in a worse position than the seller.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree with the Minister’s point about fluctuations. Does he agree that the cost of hiring boats has fluctuated massively over the past five years? If we had looked at this in 2010, we could not have predicted the fluctuations in just that small but nevertheless incredibly expensive area for oil and gas companies.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady speaks from her deep knowledge of this area. It is absolutely right that some costs have fallen, particularly since the fall in the oil price, which has driven significant efficiencies in the sector, but other costs are rising. New technologies are coming on board. Taking on a project that entails such uncertainty while being tied to a single estimate of decommissioning costs, without a wide range as we have allowed in the measure, would be a major disincentive for a buyer coming in to one of these projects.

Let me address the concern inherent in the amendments about disincentivising cost-reduction, or that the measure, in providing such a wide field, would make it unlikely for buyers to try to reduce the cost and therefore would gain higher tax relief as a result. I think the buyer will retain a strong incentive to minimise total costs, as they will be liable for meeting the remainder of the decommissioning costs. The amendment is therefore unnecessarily restrictive and would harm TTH.

Amendments 85, 86 and 87 and schedule 14 would change the TTH activation mechanism to restrict decommissioning tax relief on a field, so that it could not exceed the level of new capital investment made by a purchaser. Decommissioning costs generally occur at the end of a field’s life, when its reserves are exhausted and new capital investment will not result in further economic recovery of oil or gas reserves. For many purchasers it would therefore not be practical to make significant capital investment during the decommissioning process.

Furthermore, requiring the purchaser to match what can be very high decommissioning costs with an equal level of new capital investment could easily bankrupt many of the smaller operators that we want to take part in the industry. The best way to ensure that we get new investment into the industry, to protect jobs and create new ones, and to maximise economic recovery of our natural resources, is to have an effective TTH mechanism. That is exactly what we believe we have achieved, as a result of the deep consultation that we have conducted with industry, which I will explain in a moment. The amendments would make TTH completely unattractive and ineffective. I therefore urge the Committee to reject them.

In answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, I will briefly summarise the steps that we have taken to consult with the industry since TTH was announced at Budget 2017. Even prior to Budget 2017, the topic had been discussed with stakeholders for some time. We have built on numerous discussions held between July and December 2016, by issuing at the time of the Budget a discussion paper on tax issues affecting late-life oil and gas assets. We received 28 detailed responses and then held an expert panel, working with the industry to design the measure. I myself held two meetings in Aberdeen this year with the Oil and Gas Authority and stakeholders. Draft legislation was published over the summer on L-day, for technical consultation with the industry. We received further feedback as a result and much of that has been incorporated into the final legislation. Although there are always ways to take the measure further, we believe we have reached a point where the industry is satisfied and welcomes the steps we have taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I look forward to speaking on behalf of the Opposition, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am particularly pleased to speak to our amendments to the clauses and schedule that relate to transferable tax history, and I hope that the Minister will answer some questions on the proposed measures.

As the Minister outlined, the clause creates a mechanism for companies that are buying equity in UK oil and gas fields to acquire the tax histories of the selling companies and use them to reduce the future decommissioning costs of those fields. The Government’s intent, as we understand it, is to extend production from late-life oil and gas fields in the UK by encouraging their purchase from companies that are no longer willing to extract from them by companies that are. The Government seek to achieve that by overcoming what they believe is a barrier to sales—namely the concern that new companies will not make enough profit from the field to pay for future decommissioning costs. Transferable tax history will allow the buying company to draw on the taxes paid by the previous owners to claim the maximum tax relief possible for decommissioning.

The Opposition believe there are a number of fundamental flaws to the proposals. Transferable tax history is fiscally irresponsible. It expands the very tax breaks that put the Exchequer on the hook for exorbitant future decommissioning liabilities, which the Government have set aside no money to pay for. It creates perverse incentives, providing a windfall for companies exiting the North sea, and it fails to ensure a long-term commitment from incoming buyers on workers’ rights, capital investment and emissions reductions for the benefit of the UK. It also totally disregards the UK’s role in avoiding catastrophic climate change, and does nothing to address the urgent need for a just transition to a low-carbon economy.

With that in mind, amendments 81 to 89 seek to ensure that no transfers are approved that increase taxpayer liability for decommissioning tax-related rebates. They would also limit TTH transfers to current estimates for decommissioning costs, thus ensuring that transferable tax history does not spiral and is no higher than estimated for current reliefs. The Bill currently allows companies to transfer tax history that is worth double the value of anticipated decommissioning costs. The UK taxpayer is already committed to footing the bill for a staggering £24 billion of the estimated £64 billion decommissioning costs in the coming decades, despite the massive profits made by oil and gas companies from the North sea. Do the Government expect the £24 billion decommissioning bill to double to £48 billion over the life cycle of TTH? The UK cannot keep spending revenues that it knows it will have to pay back and that are derived from oil we cannot afford to burn, yet TTH doubles down on those policy failures. If that is not addressed now by ring-fencing a portion of oil revenue to prepare for those costs, our fiscal and environmental future will become hostage to oil revenues.

The most staggering thing about this measure, which perhaps the Minister will confirm, is that the Government have set aside no decommissioning fund to deal with the consequences of these promises. As it stands, our share of decommissioning costs is completely unfunded, and a consequence of short-term priorities and incentivising investment decisions that have been taken regardless of long-term fiscal planning and environmental exigencies. Will the Minister explain the long-term fiscal strategy for dealing with those costs when they inevitably land on the taxpayer in the not-too-distant future?

The Government’s arguments appear to rest on the assumption that additional decommissioning tax rebates will be compensated for by higher revenues from oil and gas fields, generated by increased investment and production by buyers. There is, however, an alarming lack of evidence to support that assumption, and detailed modelling of the long-term impact on decommissioning costs is conspicuously absent. Indeed, it could be argued that TTH reduces the incentives for the buying companies to increase production and generate more revenues, so have the Government considered the potential implications of that? It is perhaps unsurprising that the Government have provided no data on how much additional decommissioning rebate the Treasury might give away due to TTH, and neither have they undertaken any analysis of what would happen in a future scenario in which the oil price changes. Will the Minister commit to conducting such analysis and present the results to the House?

In our view, the measure reduces the incentive for companies to move towards efficiencies and decommissioning costs, and paves the way for decommissioning-related tax repayments that are far bigger than those companies are acknowledging. The clause is representative of the Finance Bill as a whole: it fails to deliver for the people of this country who are so desperately in need of investment in our public services, and instead it favours tax cuts for the wealthiest corporations, with the taxpayer left vulnerable to huge potential payouts. Our amendment would remove that provision and ensure that runaway decommissioning costs will not become a taxpayer risk.

Moving on, amendments 81, 85 and 86 seek to incentivise capital investment by new purchasers in job creation and emissions reductions—two crucial things that the Bill does not address. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that no clear plan has been set out by Government in the Bill to ensure a commitment to continued investment and employment from incoming buyers. Will the Minister tell us what plans he will put in place to ensure job security? Will he consider making TTH transfers conditional on maintaining employment levels? Similarly, will the Government consider limiting TTH claims to incoming companies’ investment in infrastructure, maintenance, retraining and methane reduction?

The irony of TTH becomes clear when looking at that last point. The stated aim of TTH is to prolong the life of North sea assets, yet it has the potential to do the opposite, reducing incentives for incoming companies fully to develop late-life fields. Currently, a new entrant to the North sea would have to ensure several years of production to generate sufficient taxable profits fully to carry back decommissioning losses. TTH removes that incentive. Rather than ensuring sufficient production, should the oil price dip, a company can simply claim against transfer tax history.

Far from ensuring stable future investment, the irony is that TTH has the potential to subsidise the cost of an early exit should the oil market turn against the companies, thereby making UK jobs in that industry more, not less, vulnerable to market conditions. Amendments 81, 85 and 86 limit the TTH history that may be claimed to an amount equal to such investment, ensuring that the measure will not result in increased future liabilities for the Exchequer. They will also act as a starting point for addressing issues of job security and the environment, which I will come on to in more detail.

Amendment 89 builds on ideas that the Committee has already discussed, and extends them to a decommissioning security agreement. It would require such an agreement to include an assessment of the impact on the Exchequer of the amount spent on staff in order for the agreement to qualify under the schedule. The amendment seeks to encourage transparency and accountability between the seller and the buying company, ensuring that the cost of staff, and expectations for staff retention levels, are made clear, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

There are a number of additional questions about the clause. The first expands on the issue of workers’ rights. Although the Government may argue that transferable tax history is a way of protecting jobs by extending the life of those assets, research by Oil Change International, Platform and Unite, which represent those workers, found that major North sea tax cuts over the last 40 years have not led to higher employment, and neither did tax rises reduce employment. Will the Minister say what the net flow of revenue has been between the Treasury and North sea oil and gas companies over the last three years? It seems clear that those companies have used the raft of recent tax cuts not to create new jobs—160,000 have gone in the last three years—but to enrich their shareholders.

How can the Government ensure that TTH will work in the interests of workers employed on those assets? No clauses in the Bill provide safeguards for workers’ jobs and workplace rights—it seems that the benefits of TTH will go to the private owners of oil and gas companies, and that the clause has been drafted in their interests alone. We argue that it is the Government’s responsibility to promote the stability of jobs in the region, and to ensure they are protected once smaller businesses take over the running of those sites. Will the Minister commit to conduct an analysis of the stability and security of those jobs, including the impact of the provisions, and to share that with the House?

Secondly, there is a huge concern about the environmental consequences of TTH and the encouragement of further exploitation of oil and gas in the North sea. The Government have yet properly to explain how the proposed policy fits with the UK’s commitment to the Paris climate agreement. Despite the continued claim that the UK is a global leader in taking action to meet those targets, the Government’s policies continue to fall far short of their green rhetoric. Climate science states clearly that to avoid global warming of more than 1.5°, at least 80% of known oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground. Every nation bears some degree of responsibility for leaving a portion of its fossil fuel reserves untouched.

Rather than assessing purely commercial viability, we should also assess how much remaining oil and gas in the UK can be exploited within the confines of the Paris climate agreement. It would therefore be helpful to know if and how the Government intend to assess the compatibility of TTH with that agreement. Do the Government have a view on how much of the UK’s remaining 7.5 million barrels of discovered undeveloped oil and gas resources can be equitably developed if we are to play our part in meeting the Paris goals?

Ultimately, this issue ties into the Government’s wider policy of maximum economic recovery, by which they have committed to extracting as much oil and gas as is commercially viable. Recent reforms, such as tax reduction and the decommissioning relief deed, as well as the proposal before us, are designed to make ageing marginal fields attractive to investment, even if that means reducing the per-barrel tax take or subsidising decommissioning costs to improve corporate returns. That approach is wholly inappropriate in a climate-constrained world, and it is entirely inconsistent with the Paris agreement, which requires not only a moratorium on new exploration, but the winding down of a substantial portion of current projects. In short, we need sustainable economic recovery, with Paris-compatible maximum-production targets, and a strategy to determine which combination of oil fields can most safely, efficiently and equitably exhaust the UK’s quota.

[Kirsty Blackman]

To clarify, is the Labour party position now no longer to maximise economic recovery?

[Clive Lewis]

I sat on the Bill Committee for the setting up of the OGA three years ago, and we put forward amendments for sustainable economic recovery. I recall that the Scottish National party and the Conservative party favoured maximum economic recovery. That was a difference of opinion between the two sides back then.

Thirdly and finally, there are huge risks for the taxpayer. Those risks are acknowledged by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which concluded:

“The underlying tax base is volatile and the behavioural response to these relatively complex tax changes is uncertain. We have assigned this measure a ‘high’ uncertainty rating.”

Ultimately, the policy is based on a gamble on the future oil price. Independent expert research commissioned by Global Witness states that there could be a loss of over £3 billion in tax revenue for the Exchequer over 10 years, as compared with the tax take if TTH is not introduced.

Transferable tax history has an impact on the results of investment decisions only when oil prices are relatively low. When the prices are above $50 a barrel, the impact of and need for transferable tax history is less, or even nil, since the higher prices tend to mean higher taxable income to the acquirer, who would generate enough new taxable income on their own to cover decommissioning costs.

Transferable tax history effectively provides acquirers with a hedge against lower oil prices. It jeopardizes future tax returns to incentivise investment in fields that are likely to be less efficient and with lower yields, without any consideration of climate limits or guarantees on jobs. Why is the Exchequer willing to push that cost on to the taxpayer, rather than on to the multinational companies that make vast profits from production every year and are seemingly unwilling to share them with their own workers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is not often that I will be found in Committee agreeing with clauses in any Government Bill—least of all in a Finance Bill. However, on clauses 36 and 37, I agree with the provisions on transferable tax history and thank the Government for including them.

I first raised the issue of transferable tax history on the record in March 2016 in Westminster Hall. The debate was led by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the offshore oil and gas industry. It is an active all-party group and does a huge amount of lobbying of the Government. I am sure the Chancellor is sick of hearing from us about things to make the industry more effective and maximise economic recovery, as we have been discussing. We have regularly proposed transferable tax history since we first discovered that the industry was concerned.

I will give a little background on the importance of transferable tax history and the reasons why we have called for it. There are smaller oil and gas fields around the central ones. The decommissioning of the central oil and gas field results in secondary oil and gas fields, and the smaller pools around the site, no longer being accessible without the building of significant new infrastructure. It is therefore important that, whenever the Oil and Gas Authority takes decisions about which assets can and should be decommissioned at a given time, it does so in the full knowledge of the knock-on impact. We need to ensure that we continue to have access, for example, to the small pools that are not economically viable now but are likely to be once the technology has improved. Decisions about decommissioning must be taken with full knowledge of the knock-on impacts.

The other thing that must be taken into account with decommissioning is the effect that removing assets might have on future carbon capture and storage plans. It is incredibly important that some pipelines are kept in place for the carbon capture and storage systems that are currently in train to be viable. That is another thing the Oil and Gas Authority must consider when it decides whether a field is ready for decommissioning.

One recent issue is that big operators that own a huge number of oil and gas fields, some of which are reaching the end of their economic life, must put in enhanced oil recovery mechanisms to get the rest of the oil out, which means working at higher pressures and temperatures. Big companies that have a huge number of operations in the North sea and around the world will not want to put in the necessary effort to maximise the recovery from the asset. It will think, “Actually, we are not fussed about this asset. Potentially we should just decommission it.”

[Clive Lewis]

When the deliberations were taking place with the Government, was any consideration given to climate change, the Paris agreement and the sustainable level of oil extraction? Was the fact that we will need to leave a substantial amount of oil in the ground— 80% by some estimates—to ensure we play our part in tackling climate change and remaining within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change targets taken into account?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The SNP position and the Government position is to maximise economic recovery. Oil extraction does not have a particular impact on carbon levels. It is not about oil extraction; it is about what is done with it afterwards. Carbon capture and storage, for example, has a major impact on reducing the emissions that are produced when oil and gas are used. We have been pushing very hard on carbon capture and storage. If the extracted oil is made into tarmac or plastic products, it would not cause the emissions that would be caused if it is put into a car or turned into heating oil.

The Government have taken steps on electric vehicles and the Scottish Government are doing incredible things to promote them. They are increasing insulation in houses, because domestic heating is a significant contributor to climate change. A lot is being done in this space, and it has been recognised that Scotland has the most ambitious climate change targets in the world.

All of our oil and gas fields will be decommissioned at some point. That is how this works. It was always going to be a time-limited industry, because eventually the oil and gas that can be recovered economically will run out. Once an oil and gas field is decommissioned, there will be no jobs associated with it anymore, and there will be none of the anciliary services, so it reduces the amount of employment. A new player may come into the market and want to take on a field that is not a major asset for a big oil and gas company—it would rather decommission the field because it has had enough of it and cannot be bothered with it anymore. Transferring the asset on to the new company means that, however much technology it uses, jobs will be associated with the asset—there will be no jobs if it is decommissioned. We will still get the decommissioning spend and the jobs associated with decommissioning—we will just get it later. The continuing jobs on the asset will be a good thing.

Vision 2035 is the Oil and Gas Authority’s vision, which has been picked up by the industry. It is still not talked about enough, particularly by parliamentarians. We are doing our best to raise its profile, but more hon. Members could do more. Vision 2035 is about what we want the oil and gas industry to look like in 2035. Hon. Members will understand that it is hugely important for the north-east of Scotland because of the significant percentage of jobs supported by the oil and gas industry, but it is important throughout the UK. A huge number of companies throughout England provide widgets—I tend to call goods widgets—that are used in oil and gas. If we do not have a successful North sea operation, those widgets will not be bought or used in the north.

Vision 2035 is about anchoring the supply chain. It is about a system where, once there is no viable oil and gas left in the North sea, we can continue to have oil and gas jobs anchored in the north-east of Scotland and throughout the UK. The only way we can do that is if we support the industry now and support the jobs that there are now. The Oil and Gas Authority states that the North sea and the UK continental shelf are seen as a gold standard. If a technology is trialled and works in the North sea, other countries will be happy to roll out that technology if it suits their sea conditions, because they know it has been tested in one of the most rigorous regimes and by some of the best people—they will know that the technology works.

For us to continue to have a viable oil and gas industry and a viable anchored supply chain, we need to ensure that we continue to be at the forefront of any technological changes. What we are doing on enhanced oil recovery is genuinely world leading. There are few fields in the world that are at the supermature stage of the North sea, so we are doing some of the most amazing things with technology. We can see by the increase in productivity in the North sea that technological advances have been made. If the companies making the widgets that improve production continue to be anchored here in the UK, we will be able to export those technologies and the services that sit alongside them around the world even when there is no recoverable oil and gas in the North sea.

Many of the companies that I have spoken to in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are providing widgets and, yes, they are exporting them, but they are also exporting the people power and the services that go with them through ongoing maintenance contracts, which are a big revenue stream for the region. It is important that we do not talk only about the amount of money oil and gas generates for the Exchequer through petroleum revenue tax and the money that comes in because oil and gas comes out of the ground. We should also talk about the wider impact on the economy, which can be felt particularly in the north-east of Scotland.

When the oil price went down, we had a massive issue with house prices and redundancies in the north-east of Scotland. Very real change took place not just in those jobs directly involved with operating assets in the North sea, but in those jobs working in supermarkets in Aberdeen or in hotels. We saw the knock-on impact on the economy. It is important for the entire economy that we pursue Vision 2035.

As I have said previously, and I think the Minister covered this, this has been a good example of the UK Government and industry working together. I particularly thank Mike Tholen and Romina Mele-Cornish from Oil & Gas UK, who worked incredibly hard on this. Romina had a particularly difficult time trying to explain transferable tax history to a room full of MPs and managed to get there eventually, but that was not an easy task because it is quite complicated. If people do not understand particularly how decommissioning liabilities work, we have to explain that first before explaining why TTH makes a big difference, which I think it really does.

Regarding the amendments tabled by the Labour party, there is a suggestion that companies will try to inflate the cost of decommissioning or will be disincentivised from reducing the cost of decommissioning as a result of TTH. I do not believe for a second that that is the case; the point the Minister made in relation to the increase and potential fluctuation in decommissioning costs is well made, but the other thing is that companies do not want to have to spend that money. They want decommissioning not to cost a huge amount of money. I am clear that when decommissioning is done, it must be done right, and the Oil and Gas Authority must be on top of that. I am not in favour of companies being able to drive down costs to the very furthest reaches. I want them to drive down costs, but I want the decommissioning to be done properly and at the right time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

Given the fact that this could see a doubling in the current estimate of reliefs to about £48 billion—I know there is uncertainty about what that could be, but the legislation here is for that potential for TTH to double the current estimate of £24 billion to £48 billion—can I be cheeky and ask the SNP this? If they did achieve independence, would they carry on with this policy as a sovereign Government and bear the costs associated with it?

[Kirsty Blackman]

In the event of independence, as was laid out in our White Paper, “Scotland’s Future”, the Scottish and UK Governments will have a negotiation about what will happen to decommissioning tax reliefs. We will do what we can to maximise economic harmony in the North sea and create jobs for the long term. It is incredibly important that those jobs are kept in the UK. The jobs could simply relocate if the Government do not take action. They could do more to support the supply chain, which has been squeezed by the cuts that the bigger operators have had to make because of the reduction in the oil price. The Government could do more to ensure that the supply chain companies are provided with the support that they need. The Oil & Gas Technology Centre is doing a very good job in that regard.

Access to finance is incredibly important so that companies can begin to support and monetise the technology that they have created. They have incredible reserves of intellectual property, some of which have not had the chance to be developed. I would rather not see the IP sold on to somebody else. I would rather the Government supported such development.

All the oilfields will need to be decommissioned eventually, but we want the jobs to be kept for the longer term. We are making a case for the maximum economic recovery to be made from the fields. It is important to note that once a field is decommissioned, there are no longer any jobs associated with that field. If we can prolong the life of that asset, we prolong a situation whereby jobs and therefore money for the Exchequer are secured. That is incredibly important for the north-east of Scotland. I will not support the Labour party’s amendments; I will choose to abstain. However, I will support the Government’s clause in relation to TTH. I thank them for taking action, although I would rather they had taken it sooner.

[Sir Robert Syms]

In my lifetime, the greatest British success story has been the development of North sea oil. As the Minister set out very clearly, billions of pounds of taxation have been generated. Under successive Governments we have had a tax regime that has been balanced against the risk of the investment that companies have had to take. It is therefore perfectly sensible at this stage of the maturity of the oilfields to use tax policy to ensure that the oilfields continue longer and continue to create jobs and to support, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the worldwide oil services sector based in Aberdeen.

I thank the Minister for what he is doing, which is perfectly sensible. It will generate more tax revenue. I hope we will oppose the amendments because they would make an intended simplification of the tax system more complicated. At the end of the day, we want people to continue to pump oil in the North sea and keep the jobs rolling. The Government’s policy supports that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I will briefly answer some of those points. There has been a misunderstanding about the cost of the policy to the Exchequer. We believe, as is set out quite clearly, that over the scorecard period the measure will raise £65 million of revenue for the Exchequer. Because of the nature of the oil and gas industry and oil price fluctuations, that is a difficult assessment to make. However, we see no evidence for the more outlandish estimates in the press of a £3 billion cost to the Exchequer. Neither did the independent OBR, which checked our figures in relation to the measure and agreed that £65 million was an appropriate estimate over the forecast period. We believe that the measure is fiscally responsible because no additional tax relief will be due until the field is decommissioned. That will enable more fields to be developed, and decommissioning costs will be as they always were.

We see no evidence that the measure will disincentivise efficiency savings and productivity increases. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, there is a great incentive on all parties to reduce the cost of decommissioning. The industry has signed up with Government to a target of reducing the costs of decommissioning by 35%. We would like them to go even further in the years ahead, and there is a lot of work going on to achieve that. We believe that the United Kingdom, particularly the area around Aberdeen, could be a world centre for decommissioning, and we are investing in facilities and training in that regard. We would like to work on that with the industry, because we see it as creating knowledge, new technology and jobs, which would then be exported to other fields around the world.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am really pleased to hear the Government make that commitment in relation to the world centre for decommissioning. We are talking about one of the first oil and gas fields to decommission on a mass scale. It is important that the lessons that we learn from that are used to improve and export the technology.

[Robert Jenrick]

I think I have answered those points. There was a misunderstanding about decommissioning security agreements, which I hope I have answered. Decommissioning security agreements are confidential and commercially sensitive documents. Amendment 89 would not achieve the aim that the hon. Member for Norwich South set out, because such agreements will not be in the public domain. The documents will be received by HMRC, and decommissioning costs are regulated by the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning.