Finance (No. 2) Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right. We have made huge progress in making sure that the banks are fit and able to withstand whatever external shocks there might be. The Bank of England has been heavily engaged in that, as have the Government, and we are in a much more secure position—certainly than we were when we inherited the economy we saw when we first came to office in 2010.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Minister is being very generous in allowing interventions. I was concerned by the response he gave to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). Given the Government’s stake in RBS, does he not feel that they should take some responsibility and use their influence to convince RBS not to go ahead with these closures? There have been over 90 since the start of the year, and this cannot continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was not particularly pleased with the answer that the Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) as to why the Government have not tabled an amendment of the law resolution, which would allow the Opposition to put forward more measures in relation to tax avoidance and evasion, for example. Why did they not put forward an amendment of the law resolution?

[Mel Stride]

We did not have an amendment of the law resolution on the previous Finance Bill, so we are carrying on with the situation that pertained to that Bill. As I explained, what matters is that we have an opportunity fully to scrutinise in this House the various measures provided and amendments that may be tabled in relation to those measures. There is nothing preventing that. As I have outlined, the Bill will go through its various stages, allowing for very thorough scrutiny.

Together, the measures that I mentioned continue the Government’s sustained crusade against tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance—an endeavour that we will pursue with undiminished vigour right through the course of this Parliament. Let no one ever doubt, for even the briefest moment, this Government’s commitment to hard-pressed families, and to championing business and the wealth creators of the future. On the matter of taxation as set out in the Bill, let no one misunderstand us: we will continue to keep taxes competitive and fair, but we will also continue our vigorous and ceaseless drive to bear down on avoidance and evasion so that all pay their due. We will ensure that all pay a just and fair share for the support of our vital public services: for doctors, paramedics and nurses; for our police, our teachers, our fire services, and our brave armed forces who make our country so great. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree that employee share ownership schemes are a good thing, and I would like to see an increase in them, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue that people have is not that they do not know about or cannot access employee ownership schemes, but that they do not have the money to save, given that 50% of households have less than £100 of savings? Is not that the biggest problem?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady refers to schemes that require the employees to pay for the shares. In my view, businesses should be allowed to gift shares to their employees, and that should not necessarily form part of their remuneration package. At the moment, there are a series of ways for companies to give shares to their employees, but none is particularly tax efficient or confers particular advantages to a company. I would like a company that had a certain percentage of its shares in employees’ hands to pay a lower corporation tax rate than one that failed to involve its employees in the balance sheet. That would address the general idea that the Prime Minister has talked about—that employees should be more involved in the way that businesses, especially large businesses, are run. If shareholders at the annual general meeting every year are also employees, so much to the good. Dynamising and democratising capital has to be the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am really pleased to have the opportunity to stand here on behalf of the Scottish National party for the Second Reading debate of this year’s third Finance Bill.

First, I would like to tackle the issue of the amendment of the law motion, which I have already raised with the Financial Secretary. I am particularly concerned that the Government are doing their best to use the rules of the House to dodge proper scrutiny and transparency. It is not the normal state of play to have no amendment of the law motion after a substantive Budget. I get that it is not easy for Ministers to try to hold a minority Government together when their Members are simultaneously pointing in about 300 different directions. Even so, they should be keen to come before the House, stand up for what they believe in, and allow proper scrutiny.

I would like to take the opportunity again to highlight deficiencies in the Budget process. The “Better Budgets” report, published by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the IFS and the Institute for Government, pointed out several ways in which scrutiny could be improved. One suggestion is for the Finance Public Bill Committee to take evidence in public. I am firmly of the opinion that such a change would improve scrutiny and increase Committee members’ understanding of a Budget’s measures. This will be my third Finance Bill Committee, so I feel that I can now speak with some expertise on the subject. I urge the Minister to consider this request once more, given that the previous two Finance Bill Committees I served on sat for only six sittings each. We have extra time in the legislative timetable before us, and two hearings on the first day, for example, would not stretch that. That has been the Government’s main objection, so I push the Minister to consider the proposal again.

Let me turn to economic impact assessments on particular tax measures. The Minister will be pleased to know that my point is not about Brexit, but the fact that the Government failed to carry out impact assessments on Brexit is not particularly surprising given that the tax measures that come forward in Budgets do not have economic impact assessments attached to them either. Whenever Ministers are asked about reviewing tax reliefs, we are told that they are regularly kept under review and that reviews consistently happen. Last year, however, I asked parliamentary questions on this matter, and the answers I received on the Government’s scrutiny of the tax reliefs that they had put in place were not very satisfactory. The Government were not particularly clear about whether the tax reliefs had achieved their aims. They were also not able to tell me how much money they had cost or gained for the Exchequer. If the Government are going to put forward tax reliefs—I agree that they should in certain circumstances, as they can be a good thing to encourage investment—they need to explain to the House whether they have worked. What is the point of having an absolutely massive tax code with a huge number of tax reliefs if we do not know whether they are incentivising people to do good things?

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Lady share with the House the economic and revenue impact of the SNP Scottish Government’s land and buildings transaction tax?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken to me before about the land and buildings transaction tax. I refer him to my earlier answer: 93% of people who have paid the tax in Scotland on properties over £40,000 paid either less than they would have done in England, or no tax at all.

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will not let the hon. Gentleman intervene again. He is becoming one of my more regular commentators. I appreciate his interest, but I am going to make some progress.

On scrutiny and the amendment of the law motion, the SNP and the Labour party have been clear that the Government have not gone far enough on tax avoidance, so we would like the opportunity to table amendments. I am sure the Minister does not imagine that he and his team have a monopoly on good ideas. An amendment of the law resolution would have allowed the Opposition to put forward what the Government might consider to be good ideas to reduce the amount of tax avoidance. That would be a better situation for everybody. There are 650 Members of the House, many of whom have a lot of expertise and do not sit on the Government Benches. An amendment of the law resolution would allow better amendments to come forward to make better law.

The Budget and the Bill can be criticised for what they do not include, as well as for what they do. First, there is still no acceptance of the economic impact of Brexit and there are no taxation measures to fix that. In the 12 months to June, real household disposable income shrank by 1.1%. That is the longest period of falling living standards in six years. The increase in the price of food means that families are £7.74 a week worse off, and that is before we leave the European Union, the single market and the customs union. Coupled with what the IFS says about there now being two decades of wage stagnation instead of one, and the threat of 80,000 jobs being lost in Scotland, things are looking pretty bleak. The Minister and various Members have already spoken about the public sector pay cap. That does no good for increasing incomes. I would like the Government to change their mind on the public sector pay cap and to fund changes to it.

I have already called for the Chancellor to bring forward an emergency Budget and I have no hesitation in doing so again. Given that the UK and the EU have now come up with a deal on the payment of billions of pounds by the UK to the EU, the Chancellor needs to tell us how that will be paid for. We have already had two Budgets this year, but I would have no aversion to seeing another one to take that payment into account and explain where the money will come from.

We cannot continue to have the Chancellor pulling rabbits out of hats on Budget day. I believe firmly that there must be more openness and transparency, and better scrutiny. I would welcome it if the Opposition parties could move meaningful amendments on the Floor of this House, if nothing else to show how much better we could do things. Every time that the shadow Minister took an intervention from Conservative Members, they asked how his party would pay for things. If he had the opportunity to move meaningful amendments, he would be able to set out tax measures that he and his party thought appropriate. That would avoid the accusation about the magic money tree. The Government have chosen their route so that they can avoid scrutiny, but they then criticise the Opposition for not carrying out proper scrutiny. That is not a good way to run things.

I welcome the UK Government’s change to VAT liabilities for the Scottish police and fire services. My colleagues and I have raised this matter inside and outside the House over 140 times. It is particularly convenient that the Chancellor should suddenly U-turn and fix this inconsistency for Scotland’s services at exactly the same time as he should need to do so for combined authorities, police and crime commissioners and the London fire commissioner. If he now agrees that these liabilities should not apply, surely they should not have applied in the first place. Our police and fire services would very much like the £140 million in VAT that they have paid so far to be returned. I eagerly await Scottish Tory Members, using all the power they apparently have, joining us to convince the Chancellor to pay back that £140 million. If they do not do so, they will have to explain why to police and fire services in Scotland.

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will not.

On transferable tax history, I am pleased that the UK Government have committed to changing the tax regime for late-life oil and gas assets. The Minister nods, because he has heard me go on about this on a number of occasions. I welcome the change. I ask him to work with stakeholder groups on a deal for the oil and gas sector. Given the changes to the oil price, there is still a feeling of pessimism around Aberdeen on some days. I would like the UK Government to commit to supporting the Oil and Gas Authority’s “Vision 2035” for the sector, which I think has cross-party support. This is incredibly important. It is critical to the future of the north-east of Scotland in particular, but also that of the United Kingdom as a whole, for the oil and gas sector to be supported and for our supply chain to be anchored in the UK so that it can continue to pay taxes even when North sea oil has run out. “Vision 2035” is key, and it is part of the sector deal that Oil & Gas UK and other stakeholder groups are seeking. I hope very much that the Minister will sit at the table with those groups and ensure that what they need for the future—what they need to ensure that they continue to pay tax—is realised in a sector deal.

As we have heard, the Bill makes changes to allow first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder. I have already made clear my concerns about the changes to land and buildings taxation that are proposed, which echo concerns that have been raised by the Office for Budget Responsibility, as well as a number of experts. To improve access to the housing market, the UK Government should follow Scotland’s lead and commit themselves to more social housing.

I spent eight years as a local authority councillor. By far the biggest part of my casework was presented by people who came through the door and said that they were unable to obtain a secure tenancy in a social house in the knowledge that the landlord would not chuck them out in a year provided that they continued to pay rent. The fact that that problem still exists, in Scotland and throughout England, is due to Margaret Thatcher’s right to buy. Unlike us in Scotland, the UK Government have not made any reductions in the scheme, and council housing stock has been decimated as a result. We in Scotland are trying to right the damage that has been done. We are focusing on social housing and will continue to do so, and I urge the UK Government to do the same.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point about the right to buy. Apparently about 40% of the houses that were sold off as a result of the scheme are now in the private rented sector, and a greater cost is being incurred in the form of housing benefits, so the policy does not even make economic sense.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Having observed the real-life impact on people who came through my door, who were having to squash themselves into two-bedroom council houses with their parents, brothers, sisters and children, I am certain that we need to build up our council housing stock, and that is what we continue to do in Scotland.

The last substantive issue that I want to raise is the unfairness that faces the WASPI women. The UK Government continue to fail those women. They could have made changes in this Budget and the Bill, but they failed to do so. We will not rest until fairness is won for the WASPI women.

There are so many problems with the Bill. It does not fix the many unfairnesses that the UK have created. Wages continue not to rise, and people and families are feeling poorer as a result of continued austerity and economic mismanagement. This Government are not strong and stable, and they are not helping those who are “just about managing”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

Well, education is another area that I could touch on. Reading scores and mathematics and science results are down in Scotland since 2006. England and Northern Ireland now outperform Scotland in every category.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Graham]

I will not, because I am conscious of time.

Under the SNP, more money goes in but fewer services are delivered. With a record like that, it is disappointing for Conservative Members that SNP Members stand in this Chamber and criticise what this Budget has delivered for Scotland. There is £2 billion extra for Scotland.

[Kirsty Blackman]

No, there is not.

[Luke Graham]

Yes, there is, and there is a real-terms increase, as the hon. Lady knows. There has been a whisky duty freeze, and police and fire service VAT has been returned to Scotland. Those are good things. I hope that colleagues in all parties in Holyrood can use this funding productively and work constructively so that the two levels of Scottish government can work together and deliver for their constituents.

Exiting the EU: Costs

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point. Whatever happens, we will not be paying anything like what we would have paid as an EU member. That represents a considerable saving to the British taxpayer.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for bringing this matter to the House.

There would be no newspaper rumours about the sum if the Government actually told us what the sum was. Nobody voted for this disastrous, disorganised EU exit. People voted for £350 million a week for the NHS, not to spend £40 billion or £50 billion just to be worse off. Our public services must not pay the price for this Brexit mess. It surprised us all when the Prime Minister found a magic money tree earlier this year, so surely the Government cannot have been lucky enough to find two. Given that last week’s Budget did not make provision for this £40 billion or £50 billion, will the Chancellor now bring forward an emergency Budget to explain where he is finding the money?

[Elizabeth Truss]

When the hon. Lady stood up, I thought that she was going to thank the Government for the £2 billion additional spending power that we gave to the Scottish Government in the Budget, which they will no doubt be able to use to improve their public services. As I have said before—and, indeed, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—talking about the money now would cut across the negotiations and prevent us from getting the best possible deal. That is not in anyone’s interests.

Draft Risk Transformation Regulations 2017 Draft Risk Transformation (Tax) Regulations 2017

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 General Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is an absolute delight to be on a Delegated Legislation Committee. It has been far too long since I had the pleasure of coming to one of these rooms to discuss something incredibly technical. I have several questions for the Minister, following what the hon. Member for Amber Valley said about attracting this kind of work and these kinds of opportunities to the UK.

I am not exactly clear why this stuff does not take place in the UK already, or about the Government’s moves relating to the tax treatment and the enabling legislation that the Minister talked about. This measure was mooted in the Budget in 2015, and this is the follow-through. My concerns are about the assessment of its impact. The legislation has been presented to us, but I am not clear how much tax will come to the UK Treasury as a result of it and what the economic benefits will be. How many jobs will it create, if any?

I am also not clear about the issues that the insurance industry is set to face with Brexit, which the shadow Minister alluded to. It is incredibly concerned about dropping off the cliff edge because of the legislation that means that it can no longer communicate with customers who do not live in the UK if we do not have a deal that covers that with the EU. I am not clear whether this will do any good in countering those issues and concerns—particularly those relating to Brexit.

I am not clear about why this should be exempt from corporation tax. Like the hon. Member for Amber Valley, I have concerns about creating something new that is exempt from corporation tax. I would welcome the Minister’s views on how the Government will ensure that this statutory instrument is used only by the companies and organisations that should be using it.

The shadow Minister called for an assessment, to be published fairly quickly, of the impact of the regulations—an assessment not just of how many times the legislation is used, but of the tax-take that has been lost and the economic benefit that has arisen. Given the Government’s focus on job numbers, it is really important that that comes out more when we discuss new regulations and vehicles.

I think the Minister pretty much answered the question about the requirement to deduct income tax. I understood from what he said that the income tax will be paid by the people who receive it, whichever country they happen to be in. That is why the protected cell company does not need to deduct income tax.

My last question is about the consultation responses. The papers we have state that the 19 consultation responses were largely positive and in favour of the proposal. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us how many consultation responses were sought and/or received from organisations that are not set to benefit directly from the regulations. It would be useful to know how many people who do not have a beneficial interest in them responded to the consultation. If the respondents were all people who will benefit, of course they are going to write back and say, “It’s a wonderful thing.” It would be useful to have a bit more clarity about that. I am sorry I have given the Minister an absolute string of questions, but that is the technical nature of DL Committees.

Budget Resolutions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I am very happy to confirm that for my hon. Friend. The new funding that the Chancellor announced yesterday will be available immediately.

The most recent additions to the local government family are the combined authorities, led by the six directly elected Mayors. Under this Budget, they will be able to improve local transport with half a new £1.7 billion transforming cities fund. The remainder will be open to competition by other English cities. A second devolution deal has been agreed with the incredible Andy Street in the West Midlands; a whole new devolution deal has been struck north of the Tyne; and we are developing a local industrial strategy with Greater Manchester. We are investing £300 million to ensure that HS2 infrastructure can accommodate future northern powerhouse and midlands engine rail improvements.

This kind of devolution is how to deliver growth and opportunity right across the country. It is how to boost productivity and secure new jobs and increased security for hard-working people wherever they live. It underlines the fact that this is a Budget for the whole country: a Budget for the many, not the few. [Interruption.] That has woken up Labour Members, and perhaps my next point will as well. On Tuesday night, almost 24 hours before the Budget was delivered, the Leader of the Opposition emailed his supporters to call on them to oppose everything the Chancellor was going to say. I know that Marx once said:

“Whatever it is, I’m against it,”

but that was Groucho, not Karl. It is great that Labour Members have found a new source of inspiration, but their economic plans are no laughing matter.

On Sky News yesterday, the shadow Housing Minister said that people should look at what the Institute of Fiscal Studies said about the spending plans in his party’s manifesto, so I did. I took a look, and it said:

“What Labour actually want you to hear is that the spending increases they promise…would be funded by tax increases solely affecting the rich and companies. This would not happen… In the longer term, much of the cost is likely to be passed to workers through lower wages or consumers through higher prices.”

Those are not my words, but those of the independent IFS.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that the IFS has just issued a press release saying that workers are now facing two lost decades of earnings growth?

[Sajid Javid]

I am aware—far more than the Labour party, despite its name—that what workers want is work. That is why we should celebrate the fact that we have more people employed today than at any time in our history, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years.

Labour Members talk a good game, but all they have are blank cheques they know will never be cashed and empty promises they know they will never be able to keep. Over and again, the shadow Chancellor refuses to say how much his spending plans would cost, how much he would have to borrow and how much debt he would pile on to the next generation. He says that he does not “need a number”, because that is “what iPads are for”. He even accused one reporter of wanting him to “pluck a figure” out of thin air. Well, no, we do not want him to pluck a finger out of thin air—[Interruption.] A figure, and a finger as well. He is good at putting up the finger—we know that. We want him to tell the British people how much his plans would cost. His failure to do so can mean one of only two things: either he has no idea what the cost would be, in which case he is not fit to be Chancellor, or he does know, but is refusing to share his dirty little secret because he is all too aware of how shameful it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is an honour to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party on this second day of debate on the second 2017 Budget.

This Budget is no better than the last one. The UK Government are in chaos. Cabinet infighting means that they are hamstrung and unable to take even the most basic decisions. Brexit, and the likely economic fall-out, is set to have a dramatic impact on the household budgets of very many people. Unlike the Government, the Office for Budget Responsibility has taken that threat seriously and downgraded our GDP figures accordingly. That is the worst downgrade in the OBR’s projections since its creation seven years ago.

The outlook for GDP growth is worse on all counts than even the OBR’s projections in spring. GDP might seem like an ethereal concept to people, and unrelated to their daily lives, but here are the ramifications of this drastic downgrading. The Resolution Foundation has said that it equates to £1,000 a year in wages, which is £19 a week less to spend on essentials such as food and electricity. How will low-income families cope if their spending is slashed by an extra £19 a week? The TUC has pointed out that that is an £800 decrease in wages even from the prediction in March. The Fraser of Allander Institute reported that the GDP damage of a hard Brexit could cost Scotland 80,000 jobs. That is 80,000 people not paying tax to the Treasury; 80,000 folk having to struggle through the jobcentre system, and whose journey back to employment has been made even more painful and less dignified by the number of jobcentres closed by this UK Government.

The Scottish Government estimate that a hard Brexit could reduce GDP in Scotland by £11 billion a year by 2030. That is up to £3.7 billion a year less to spend on public services—£3.7 billion would pay the salary of 185,000 new police officers, 161,000 new teachers, or 168,000 new nurses, and that is only the impact in Scotland.

On the block grant, the Chancellor announced largesse for Scotland—£2 billion—but that is smoke and mirrors because £1.1 billion of that is financial transaction money. It cannot be used to pay for vital frontline public services, and it has to be paid back. If the Chancellor was going to make an announcement for Scotland, he should have made an actual announcement of real money that could be spent by the Scottish Government at their discretion on frontline services.

Between 2010-11 and 2019-20, Scotland’s budget has seen a cut of £2.6 billion in real terms. Next year, the Scottish Government will have more than £200 million less to spend on frontline public services. Over the next two years, the Scottish block grant for day-to-day services has been reduced by £531 million. Is this £2 billion more for the Scottish Government to spend? Is it tatties!

The Chancellor has announced that VAT for Scottish police and fire services will not apply as of April next year. He agreed that it was unfair to charge VAT on those services, but he has not agreed to give us the rebate that we are owed—£140 million is owed to Scotland.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Is it not a fact that the SNP Government were given good notice and warning that the impact of their centralisation of the Scottish police and the Scottish fire and rescue services would create this situation? Was it not Scottish Conservative Members who lobbied Ministers to get the SNP Government out of the mess they created?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Not long ago, Murdo Fraser, a Scottish Conservative MSP, said in the Scottish Parliament that Scotland should not have the money paid back because it was the SNP’s fault for centralising the services. The Scottish Tories supported that centralisation—it was in their manifesto. The Chancellor has agreed that the VAT was unfair and that it was taking money from front-line public services, yet he is refusing to refund it. We have raised the issue and called for the change to be made 140 times. As far as I am aware, the Scottish Tories have raised it once in this House—once! It is ridiculous for them to suggest that pressure from them has twisted the Chancellor’s arm. In fact, it that were true and if the Chancellor was willing to listen only to representations from Conservative Members of Parliament, what does that say about the Chancellor’s honour?

On money for Scotland—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. She is choosing her words carefully and I am sure she is not impugning the honour of any Member of this House. She asked a rhetorical question and I am sure she will not push it any further than that.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not push it any further than that.

The other thing that the SNP has been calling for—the Scottish Tories have so far been unwilling to do so, it seems—is £190 million convergence uplift that is owed to our farmers. That money should go to Scottish farmers and we will continue to push for that.

If the UK Government were not in such chaos, they would have recognised the folly of Brexit. Even if they do decide to proceed with this incredibly damaging policy, there is certainty they could give now that would reduce, slightly, the economic harm we will see. They could abandon their net migration cap of 100,000 people. That would help to keep our public services fully staffed. Earlier this year, the Nursing and Midwifery Council produced its annual report on the number of registered nurses and midwives. Compared with the period from 2012 to 2016, registrations in the last year were down 46% from Ireland, 86% from Italy, 87% from Romania and 95% from Spain. These are trained nurses and midwives registered to work in the UK in our NHS, to work in our frontline services and to work to provide nursing and midwifery care for people who are in incredibly vulnerable states, and the Government are closing the door on them. They are ensuring that fewer people come. They are ensuring that our public services will be worse staffed as a result.

On housing, we need workers from the EU. In London alone, a third of construction workers are from the EU. The Government cannot say they intend to build more housing, while at the same time shutting the door to many skilled construction workers.

The Chancellor has announced a wonderful new policy of no stamp duty for first-time buyers who are buying a house for less than £300,000 in England and Wales. In time-honoured tradition, one of the Chancellor’s biggest Budget commitments has fallen apart in less than 24 hours. The OBR confirms that it expects the policy to increase house prices. Implementing the policy is costing £3.2 billion, but the OBR expects 3,500 houses to change hands as a result. That means the Government are subsidising each house by £924,000 each. One tax expert I follow on Twitter said that virtually every tax expert thinks that this policy sucks.

[Stephen Kerr]

Would the hon. Lady care to share with the House the effects of the SNP Government’s land and buildings transaction tax, which has been an unmitigated disaster and caused untold turmoil in the Scottish property market? Perhaps she should be fuller in her disclosure to the House of the effect her Scottish Government have had on the Scottish property market.

[Kirsty Blackman]

You know what, Madam Deputy Speaker? I was just about to talk about the Scottish land and buildings transaction tax. I was just about to talk about the fact that it is way more progressive than the position put forward by the UK Government. Before I get on to that, however, I want to make it clear that the Scottish Government are investing £3 billion in affordable housing. Fifty thousand affordable homes will be built over the course of the Scottish Parliament, 35,000 of which will be for social rent—something sadly missing from the UK Government’s proposals. We are incredibly supportive of social housing, council housing and housing association housing. It is very important that there are more properties for social rent.

On the land and buildings transaction tax, those buying a house for less than £145,000 in Scotland pay no stamp duty. Buying a house for £180,000 attracts a stamp duty charge of only £600. It is possible to buy a fairly reasonable three-bedroom semi-detached house in many places in Scotland for less than £180,000. First-time buyers will pay only £600 in stamp duty and that has been in place for the past two years. Actually, £180,000 is much more realistic for a first-time buyer than £300,000. How many first-time buyers, without inherited wealth, have got £30,000 in the bank to put down for a deposit? The effect of the LBTT in Scotland was that over the first two years 93% of those buying a house in Scotland worth more than £40,000 paid either no stamp duty at all or less than they would have in England. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) said that that was an unmitigated disaster. Clearly, he has not read the figures. Some 93%—a significant portion—of those buying a house over £40,000 paid less than they would down here.

The action our Government have taken was thought through, unlike the piecemeal approach the UK Government take. Successive Chancellors have insisted on the right to pull rabbits out of hats at Budgets. This has led to the drastic unravelling that occurs after almost every Budget. If the Chancellor was collegiate and consulted on measures, and if he approached issues such as stamp duty, small business taxation or income tax with the intention to review the whole system, we would see much better policy decisions being made. We need more coherence and less drama from Chancellors. They should not be trying to pull rabbits out of hats. They should be trying to create a system that works, rather than a system that will give them a big headline the day after Budget day.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if you were to ask someone under 30 whether they expect to have a pension, they will likely tell you that they do not. If you ask them whether they will be able to afford to buy a house, they will likely laugh at you. But, most importantly, if you ask them about their security, how precarious their current housing situation is and how precarious their current work situation is, they will tell you how difficult it is to save for the future. They will tell you how difficult it is to build a stable life when their landlords move them on every year and when they have to share with other people. They will tell you how difficult it is to save for the future when they are working on zero-hours contracts. The Chancellor’s pretendy national living wage is not enough to live on—it does not even apply to under-26s—and what they need is not a cut in stamp duty or to be able to save £20,000 in an ISA tax free, but for their income to be consistently and substantially higher than their expenditure. They need an increase in the minimum wage. They need a decrease in rents and a decrease in the cost of living. In the past year, the price of vegetables has gone up 2%, the price of fish has gone up 10%, the price of electricity has gone up 11%, the price of butter has gone up 12% and the price of kids’ clothes has gone up 3%. When we have wage stagnation, how do we expect people to be able to afford the most basic of essentials?

Millennials, people under 30, need a decrease in rents. The typical millennial has actually earned £8,000 less during their twenties than those in the preceding generation. An economic time bomb is ticking. Household debts continue to rise. Interest rates are going up—a major problem, given the increase in household debt. Increasing the personal allowance is welcome news from the Chancellor, but it is not enough. He is increasing it by £350. That is £350 that people will not pay 20% tax on. That is pennies in the grand scheme of things. That will not make the difference we would see with a real living wage. I have already mentioned the issues raised by the IFS, which is predicting two decades of lost wage growth.

The UK Government continue to fail. The Budget did not help. This Government are in chaos and the Chancellor has taken no real action to undo the years of austerity and wage stagnation that punishes our most vulnerable. The Government should tear this Budget up and start again: with spending commitments that increase wages and help our most vulnerable; with fairness for the WASPI women; with a U-turn on the benefits freeze; and with the devolution of powers on tax avoidance to Scotland, so we can tackle it properly. Mr Chancellor, I have a message for you: you are harming the whole of the UK, and the SNP will fight you every step of the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in the Budget debate. I am quietly satisfied to have been found guilty by no less a personage than the Chancellor of bending his ear. I have no hesitation in saying that my Scottish Conservative colleagues and I have indeed been bending his ear, and we will continue to bend the ears of any and all colleagues in the best interests of Scotland and the people of Scotland. Further, I have no hesitation in saying that we on these Benches have achieved more for Scotland in the five months since we entered this House than Scottish National party Members have achieved in the past two and a half years, if not longer.

I wanted to hear a responsible and measured Budget that will continue to tackle the deficit and the debt while making properly considered investment decisions that will create the right conditions to produce prosperity in our country. The cost of servicing the national debt is now an extraordinary burden on the public finances, and it is surely immoral to pile up such a debt and leave it to our children and grandchildren to pay it down later. I hope that all seven—it is soon to be eight—of our grandchildren will be glad of this Conservative Government’s fiscal responsibility and the part that their grandfather played in sustaining it. Without fiscal responsibility, we cannot afford defence, health, education or any other of our immensely valuable public services on which the Government spend taxpayers’ money.

I congratulate the Chancellor on his forward-looking positivity. He described a future full of change and challenges, yes, but also opportunity. His Budget speech presented a picture of a Government who are getting on with the business of governing and bringing about the change that our country needs as we embrace the future, including the fourth industrial revolution, with all the opportunities coming in its wake, and of course Brexit. I welcome the much needed investment in R and D and the necessary investment to prepare for our departure from the European Union and to make plans for all possible outcomes, including the possibility that few of us would prefer: no deal.

The Budget clearly shows the value of Scottish Conservative Members to this House. Scotland was at the heart of the Budget, and Scotland is at the heart of the Union. We have a Budget before us that is good for Scotland, and we engaged positively with the Budget process to secure our city deals and tax changes, to bring about a resurgence of activity in the oil and gas sector in the North Sea and to allow Police Scotland and the Scottish fire and rescue service to receive VAT refunds. That all goes to show what can be achieved when Scotland’s place at the heart of the Union is embraced rather than scorned.

I am pleased by and welcome the universal credit reforms, and I was grateful for the news on fuel duty and spirits duty. As an aside, I was also grateful to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) a clear indication yesterday that the next phase of the broadband roll-out of local full-fibre networks and 5G in Scotland will be delivered in partnership with local authorities instead of the Scottish Government, who have gone about the first roll-out phase extremely slowly.

As we begin the implementation of the Stirling region deal, 2018 will be a seminal year for Stirling. We have a transformative vision for Stirling, including the creation of a national aquaculture innovation centre to build on that growth industry, and by enhancing the UK’s position as the world capital of fashion by creating a UK tartan centre to leverage this great iconic product across the world. We will see improvements in rural and urban infrastructure to enhance economic conditions and economic prospects right across Stirling.

[Kirsty Blackman]

How does the hon. Gentleman feel about his neighbouring city of Dundee no longer being able to be a European city of culture because this Government are dragging us out of the European Union?

[Stephen Kerr]

The Government are not dragging us out; the people of this country voted in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.

There are many questions that could be asked of the SNP Government. For example, will the Scottish Government lift their broadband tax? In England, new broadband infrastructure will attract tax relief, so we are waiting for the Scottish Government to act. Will the SNP Government match the Chancellor’s commitment to remove stamp duty for first-time buyers by removing said buyers from having to pay the discredited land and buildings transaction tax? We will wait and see. Will the SNP Government continue to make Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom? Will they press on with their plans to increase personal taxes for everyone in Scotland earning over £24,000 a year, which is the average income in Scotland? It is a disgrace. It is hardly progressive politics. The SNP want to foment grievance, and the people of Scotland are seeing through that. We need a Conservative Government in Holyrood with Ruth Davidson as First Minister. That is the only way that we will be able to realise the full benefits of Scotland’s place at the heart of the United Kingdom. I am proud to be present in the Chamber for my first Budget debate as Stirling’s Member of Parliament, and I welcome this Budget.

Duties of Customs

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am pleased that the Government have finally brought forward something that is at least a bit more solid than things were previously, albeit not yet very solid.

The customs White Paper says that we should refer to the future partnership agreement and to the Northern Ireland position paper, and the Northern Ireland position paper says that we should refer to the customs White Paper—this is a complete guddle! Having read all these things, not only am I still not clear about how customs will look after the UK leaves the EU, but I am not clear about how the UK Government want customs to look. The only thing that I am even vaguely clear about is that they want the process to be as close to frictionless as possible, yet they have not made any clear commitments about exactly how they expect that to work. Let us look at some of the things they have said in their various papers. With regard to Northern Ireland, for example, they want to agree

“at an early stage a time-limited interim period, linked to the speed at which implementation of the new arrangements could take place, that allows for a smooth and orderly transition.”

I might be wrong, but I think that now is an early stage. In fact, before now would have been a good time at which to make decisions and commitments, and to be clear to business about at least what the direction of travel is, but we are not there yet. We are very close to Brexit day. Brexit day is coming in March 2019—who knows at what time?—and the Government have not been clear with businesses about even their aspirations for how customs will look.

It is undoubtedly the case that we benefit from being members of the EU single market and members of the customs union. Even those who are most vociferously in favour of Brexit agree that we benefit from those things. The lower estimate of the effect on GDP due to leaving the customs union and the single market is that we will lose 3.8%. The upper estimate of the effect of the trade deals that we will strike with Japan, the USA, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India all added together is a gain of 2.37 percentage points. That is significantly less than the 3.8% that we are going to lose, so even on the best estimates, we are going to be down. The EU is pretty close to striking a trade deal with some of those countries anyway, so the benefits to us are notional rather than actual.

The single market and the customs union continue to benefit us. We are told by the independent and respected Fraser of Allander Institute that a hard Brexit could cost Scotland 5% in GDP growth. A really interesting paper by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research told us last year that if we have these free trade arrangements instead of being a member of the single market and customs union, Scotland will lose £5 billion of exports in services alone. That is very significant. Analysis by the Scottish Government states that Scottish GDP could be around £11 billion a year lower by 2030 than would be the case if Brexit did not occur.

For those reasons and many others, we in the SNP have been clear from the beginning that we are against Brexit. We are against driving off this cliff, and we are against the incredibly hard landing that will happen when the Brexit bus hits the bottom. Despite our opposition to all these things, we are trying in this House to mitigate the impacts of Brexit. If the Government are determined to drive us off this cliff, we will try to make sure that there are fewer spiky things at the bottom for us to be impaled on.

I do not know how many Members have read the Government’s White Paper on customs, but it refers to the Government’s two proposed scenarios for the working of the future customs relationship. It also talks about contingency options for if the Government do not achieve their aspirational, bespoke deal—nobody has ever managed to get such a deal, and the Government do not really know what it is—and I think that people at home will be really interested to hear what it says. In a contingency situation, there would not be a £15 VAT-free threshold on parcels posted to people by family members, businesses and organisations in the EU. The Ways and Means motions that we are supposed to be agreeing today would allow the Government to charge VAT on gifts sent to people from the EU, which is ridiculous. If somebody gets a parcel worth less than £15 from a person in America, no VAT is payable on it, but the Government propose that such an exemption would not apply to things that came from the EU in a contingency situation. A lot of people would be pretty unhappy to discover that they will have to pay a customs charge on presents or other items that have come from the EU. Such things have not been spelled out to people or fully discussed.

I have referred to the various papers—I think we are up to four—that the Government have published on this matter. They have been pretty comprehensively savaged not just by experts, but by businesses, which are the real experts in this area. The Minister talked about roll-on/roll-off ports and the speed at which things have to come through ports. The Government have tried and failed to solve the problems with Operation Stack at Dover. Only last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), put out a statement to say, “Our plans for sorting out Operation Stack are, basically, dead in the water, and we’re going to have to start again. But don’t worry: we’ll definitely have something done by March 2019 when the UK leaves the customs union and the single market.”

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady will agree that the oil and gas industry, which is important to both our constituencies, largely trades internationally outside the EU. It does not fear international trade. Is it wrong?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am not saying that anybody should fear international trade. International trade is a very good thing, particularly for productivity, for example, which the oil and gas industry has been quite good at bringing up. The more international trade a country has, the better its productivity growth, but Brexit is not going to result in more international trade—[Interruption.] Brexit is going to result in the UK having more say over the terms of some trade deals with third countries. It will not result in more international trade, because the EU is international—it is made up of a number of other countries—and there is going to be a reduction in frictionless trade to the EU as a result of the changes. [Interruption.]

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will have noticed that Conservative Members are expressing a fair degree of anger. Clearly some of them do not believe her when she says that Brexit will not lead to an increase in international trade. The Government have carried out assessments, so is it not the case that if they wanted to demonstrate that Brexit would lead to an increase in international trade, they could quite easily publish those assessments and we could find out for ourselves?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree.

Monique Ebell from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has written a report that compares participation in very comprehensive free trade agreements with membership of an organisation such as the single market, which is pretty much unparalleled in its encouragement of cross-border trade. Being part of a very close free trade arrangement does not give the same access to trade in services or goods as membership of the single market. Even if we had a comprehensive free trade agreement with every country in the world, we would still lose out as a result of Brexit.

[Dr Murrison]

I am listening with a great deal of interest to what the hon. Lady has to say. The amendments she tabled express commendable encouragement to the European Union, which does her great credit. However, in the interests of being balanced and fair, is she also concerned for much of Africa and South America? At the moment, they suffer the whip end of the customs union, as it makes the export of raw food products to Europe virtually impossible for many of them. Would she like to comment on that, since I am sure that the SNP is very concerned to promote the wellbeing of people in those countries?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting case. I have not looked into all the impacts, but the WTO gives developing countries tariff protection, for example. It is likely that some of these things balance out, but I have not looked into the exact details. I am aware that some Brexit supporters are suddenly concerned about how developing countries will cope with international trade, although they were not particularly worried about that before.

I want to move on to talk specifically about some of the impacts of the proposed changes. I have mentioned the problems that people sending and receiving parcels might face. The Government’s “Future customs” paper states:

“Trade is a key driver of growth and prosperity. It stimulates greater business efficiency and higher productivity, sharing knowledge and innovation across the globe.”

It goes on to say that trade

“provides a foundation for stronger and more prosperous communities. It ensures more people can access a wider choice of goods at lower cost”.

Those are all arguments for staying in the customs union, not leaving it.

All the Government’s papers refer to consulting businesses. In all our conversations, the Government have said that they have spoken to businesses. The problem is that although businesses are lobbying the Government as loudly as they possibly can about the impacts of Brexit, the Government are not listening. The Government have an aspirational picture of how wonderful Brexit is going to be and no matter how much evidence to the contrary they are provided with, they continue to push on. Even Conservative Members who supported remain are suggesting, in the main, that we will have benefits from Brexit. In my eyes, that is not right.

The customs declaration service was mentioned by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh). The Minister is generally very good at explaining such things. He has said that he hopes to have pilots soon, with the service up and running by January 2019, but three months is not enough to test a customs declaration service fully. It is not enough to allow businesses to iron out all the problems that might arise or to get used to the red tape.

I want to go back to the issues raised by some of the Government’s aspirations and ideas that are, honestly, unworkable. One of the nine principles they have set out for what they expect to do to deal with trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland is:

“Consider how best to protect the integrity of both the EU Customs Union, Single Market and trade policy, and the new independent UK customs regime, internal market and trade policy, in the context of finding flexible and imaginative solutions, while recognising that the solution will need to go beyond any previous precedents.”

That is an aspiration without a solution. They are not putting forward a potential solution. They cannot even think of anything to square this circle, fix this problem or dig themselves out of the hole into which they have fallen.

This is an unmitigated disaster. The changes that the Government propose, particularly the customs duties that will be put on goods coming from the EU, or leaving the UK to go to the EU, are a disaster for businesses and for people at home. Some of those goods cross the border several times. For organisations such as car manufacturers or aerospace companies, sometimes the widgets—for want of a better word—cross from the UK to the EU and back many times before there is a finished product. If there has to be a customs declaration each time, and if there is an increase of even a few minutes in the time taken on each occasion, real problems will be caused to a huge number of businesses.

Businesses are speaking to the Government and raising concerns, but the Government are not listening. They now need to give businesses a clear direction. They need to make it absolutely clear today that their intention is that we will not have customs duties between the UK and the EU, so they should support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

No. I want to make more progress.

Furthermore, striking new trade deals will unlock the potential of many more Scottish businesses, helping them to make their mark around the world and boosting our economy at home, too. If we are to seize these opportunities and make the greatest possible success of them, Britain needs to be ready on day one of our exit from the EU for new trade relationships. On this point, the clock is now ticking.

[Ross Thomson]

No.

That is why this customs Bill is so important. Irrespective of any agreements reached between the UK and the EU as part of the negotiation and exit process, the UK will need primary legislation to create its own stand-alone customs regime, and to amend the VAT and excise regimes so that they can function effectively after the UK has left the EU.

The Bill will create a framework that lasts for a new UK customs regime. It will lay before us the necessary foundations to allow new arrangements on customs to be put in place depending on whatever the outcomes of the Brexit negotiations are, such as the implementation of a negotiated settlement with the EU, or leaving the EU without an agreement on customs.

I am sure that all Members of this House want our withdrawal from the EU to provide as much certainty and continuity as is possible for our businesses, employees and consumers. Currently, as the majority of rules governing customs in the UK are contained in directly applicable EU law, such as the Union customs code, it is important at this stage that new domestic legislation is brought forward and put in place for when we leave the EU in March 2019.

In the longer term, depending on the outcome of the negotiations with the EU, the Government will want to consult on possible changes to this law to help UK businesses, but now is the time to help businesses in all of our constituencies by providing the continuity of the existing rules, wherever possible.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

No.

Furthermore, the Government will ensure, as they do at present, that their future customs regime is consistent with internationally agreed rules and arrangements. What does this mean in practice? As we all know, trade is not just about the trade deals that we strike or where the growing markets are in the world; it is also about the tariffs, regulatory barriers and terms of trade that we decide to set as part of a new UK policy. The Bill therefore enables the UK to establish a new UK tariff, charge customs duty on goods, set and vary rates of customs duty, and suspend or relieve duty at import in certain circumstances. The UK will be able to set preferential duties and additional duties—for example, to implement a preferential tariff applicable to developing countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech, but I am slightly concerned that he keeps talking about the views of experts. We know that Government Members are not keen on the view of experts. Does he think they might listen this time?

[Ian Murray]

I can answer the hon. Lady’s intervention in one word: no. They clearly are not going to listen to the experts on these issues. In fact, they have sown the seed of doubt that none of us should listen to experts, and the country will be much diminished as a result.

I want to touch on two more sectors. The chemicals sector is another key driver of the UK economy. We have a great chemicals sector—one of the key chemicals sectors across the EU—and it has said that

“the best way to guarantee no adverse disruption to business and trade…and to guarantee only one adjustment before reaching a final agreement with the EU, is to seek to retain our existing membership of the Single Market and Customs Union”.

So we have the automotive industry body—the one we all trust—and the pharmaceuticals sector, and we now have the chemicals sector, yet the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box and said, “Don’t worry. We’ll put more people in place to help all this along”. I suggest that the customs union might be an answer to this particular question.

I will finish with the shipping sector—the very sector that takes the goods from these islands to the continent. The UK shipping sector has warned that the UK is facing an “absolute catastrophe” if it does not sort out a “frictionless and seamless” border at Dover and other ports. The Government keep talking about a frictionless and seamless border but cannot tell us what it means. I suggest that the best way to maintain or enhance the border—to make it frictionless and seamless and operate as a single market—is to maintain our status in the customs union.

If we were starting from scratch—with a blank sheet of paper—and seeking to determine the best way for an island nation to trade with other nations, it would be to have a customs union with those nations. Under such an agreement, we would not need to use the word “frictionless”, because there would be absolutely no friction at all, and it would be completely seamless. The best way to highlight how seamlessly and how frictionlessly a single market and a customs union can operate is to look at the markets between Scotland, Wales and England. They have a completely seamless border: they are completely free market, completely single market, completely customs-free.

I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has joined us. At the time of the referendum, he claimed, along with me—and I have said this to his colleague the hon. Member for Aberdeen South—that one of the key arguments against an independent Scotland was the lack of a border at Berwick. Now he is arguing the opposite in the context of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. That is completely contradictory, and he cannot tell us how it will be resolved. How could it not have been resolved in the Scottish context?

As a member of the customs union, the UK is party to preferential trade agreements. We want to walk away from those agreements, and make our own. It is likely that, outside the customs union, the UK would need to renegotiate many, if not all, of those agreements with those who would become third parties. It is not as easy as just rolling over those agreements, which is what the Government seem to want to do.

I am conscious of time, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let me move on a little. I want to talk about Northern Ireland and the Republic. [Interruption.] I know that the Government do not like to hear these arguments, because they have no answers to them, but I think it important for them to be highlighted in the House. If the Government can provide only limited time for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, they may as well rehearse some of the arguments today. We have until 10 pm, after all, and if the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) wants to intervene and waste time, he is more than welcome to do so.

We have already talked about the massive queues at our ports, airports and rail terminals. Now, as I have said, I want to say a little about Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Foreign Affairs Committee visited Dublin and the border on Thursday and Friday last week to consider the consequences of our leaving the European Union. Let me say again to the Minister that if he wants to name any organisation in either Northern Ireland or the Republic which thinks that Brexit will be good for the isles of Ireland, let him please do so, because I have not heard of any, and am unlikely to hear of any. In fact, the only two people I heard supporting our withdrawal from the customs union and the single market in the context of the isles of Ireland were the two Brexiteers on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Some of the words used were “catastrophic”, “irreconcilable” and “unsolvable”.

I simply cannot understand how the Minister can table motions such as this to pave the way for major Bills without having the basic answers to these questions, while using meaningless phrases such as “frictionless” and “seamless”. I am very concerned about the Belfast agreement, or Good Friday agreement, which is underpinned by the European Union, underpinned by a seamless border, and underpinned by a single market in the island of Ireland. It is almost impossible for the Government to reconcile wanting no borders, and frictionless and seamless trade, with the route that they are taking with a non-deal Brexit.

I have another suggestion, which the Minister may recognise. The way to have a seamless and frictionless border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is the customs union. That would mean that trade in goods could go across the border, unfettered, seamless, and I may even push it to frictionless, which is what the Government have been saying all along.

Our Committee travelled from Cavan—Cavan County Council hosted us on Thursday evening—to drive on to the motorway back to Dublin. It is a distance of about four and a half miles, and we were in a minibus. We crossed the border seven times just to travel a short distance. That is irreconcilable. Many people in Northern Ireland and the Republic who spoke to the Committee—and I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to read its conclusions when they are published—said that it was intellectually incoherent to argue that it was possible to have no border while requiring a border. It is not possible to have frictionless and seamless trade while having to check goods, and it is not possible to have a border at sea level while trying to ensure that the Good Friday agreement is maintained.

Former president Mary McAleese spoke to us in great depth about the passion for the Good Friday agreement. Let me say to the Minister and the Government, in all seriousness, that they ruin that agreement at their peril. It is something of which everyone should be incredibly proud. The way in which the Government are going about the Brexit negotiations, the way in which they are treating the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, the way in which they are fooling the public that it is possible to have everything and not have everything, is indeed wrong. Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator whom we all know so well now, has said to the Government, particularly in relation to the issue of Ireland, that they cannot have their cake and eat it. Something will have to give, and that is why I tabled the amendments. The Minister must think very seriously about that physical border.

Let me end by saying a little about the Labour party’s position. I think that we are right on this issue, and our position is written into the documents that we have here. We want to stay in the customs union, if possible. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, who tabled the amendments about parliamentary scrutiny. We should always press such amendments, because the Government, who talk of taking back control, are not giving control to Parliament.

All the issues relating to Ireland, to trade, to tariffs and what will happen in the future, to jobs, to borders and to tailbacks at customs can be resolved if the United Kingdom at least leaves on the table—regardless of whether we agree—the possibility of remaining members of the single market and the customs union. That would take away all these concerns. When we reach the end of the process, whether or not there is a meaningful vote in this place, the Minister and his Government will know when the jobs start leaving this country, when borders start being erected, when customs becomes more difficult, when trade becomes much more difficult, when public services become much more difficult to fund, when debt rises and deficit rises, that his Government have let the people down by not telling them the truth about the consequences of leaving the single market and the customs union.

That is why I tabled my amendments, and I hope that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Lobbies.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is not common for me to exceed 10 minutes, so I will try to stick to that. Let me start by thanking you for granting this debate under Standing Order No. 24, as I very much appreciate that, and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for securing it. I also wish to thank all the journalists who have done all the work on the Paradise papers. They have done a huge amount of work in investigating this, exposing the issues and bringing them to the attention of the international media as well as this House. They deserve to be thanked for that.

I normally have quite a lot of time for the Minister—I find him to be often wrong but generally reasonable—but the speech he made today was badly pitched. The one made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) was much better, in that he talked not only about resting on the laurels of all the great things the Government have done, but about what the Government were going to do and could to in the future. [Interruption.] And should do, absolutely. I hope the Minister listens to the voices from across the House and what they are calling for. As has been said, this is not a party political issue. I do not have a huge amount of respect for the actions of either the Labour Government or the Conservative Government on tax avoidance and evasion. I do not think either party has done a particularly good job on that. A huge amount more can be done, as Members from across the House would agree.

Transparency International looked into companies dodging tax and found 766 UK companies that were involved in corruption and money laundering, to the tune of £80 billion. A quarter of those companies that were investigated by Transparency International are still active—the UK Government could take action on those organisations. The UK Government are making a number of incredibly ill-advised and not great decisions at the moment, on things such as closing HMRC offices and their continued pursuance of austerity. The only reason the Government are tackling Scottish limited partnerships is the work done by a number of journalists, as well as colleagues from my side of the House. I appreciate that the Government have taken action on that, but it took a very long time for them to be convinced by MPs such as Roger Mullin to make any move on it.

As I said, not only this UK Government but previous ones have successively failed to crack down on this. The UK tax code is out of hand and requires simplification. The changes the UK Government are making, in conjunction with the Office of Tax Simplification, have not gone far enough. It still requires a van to carry the tax code; people can no longer carry it, because it is so significant. The potential for loopholes and for people to dodge things as a result of that incredibly complicated tax code is ridiculous. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), the shadow Minister, talked about the UK Government previously calling for the EU’s sanctions around tax dodging to be watered down. That was grim action for them to take, particularly in the wake of the Paradise papers, when this call came. The UK Government should be leading by example. They should not just be saying, “Oh, we’ve got the tax gap down to 6%.” They should be saying, “The tax gap is still 6%. We have a huge amount of work to do to crack down on that final 6%.” The UK has the opportunity to lead the world in this regard and it should do so.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady think the introduction of further tax bands and thus further complication by the SNP Administration in Edinburgh is an additional complication or a simplification of the UK tax code?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman is confusing income tax with a number of other types of tax. What has happened in Scotland in relation to the paper that has been produced, which sets out a number of options and their effects, and then consults on them, is way more transparent than any action that any UK Government take in advance of any Budget, where they pull rabbits out of hats. The Scottish Government have entered into dialogue with the other parties, which have the opportunity to take that chance to criticise or to praise. They should do that, as he should. The Scottish Government and the SNP have called for this area to be devolved to Scotland because we think we would do a better job.

As everyone knows, tax evasion is illegal, but the Paradise papers highlighted that tax avoidance is immoral.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On the Paradise papers, does my hon. Friend share my concern at seeing the Duchy of Lancaster’s investment in BrightHouse, a company that exploits constituents in vulnerable areas such as mine with extortionate annual percentage rates of 70%? Does she find that immoral as well?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that, as I, too, have constituents who are exploited by organisations such as BrightHouse. It is not a company that anyone reputable should be investing in.

It is not that difficult for people to pay the tax that they owe; it is not that difficult to say to a financial adviser—this is for those who have bags of cash—“I would like my money to grow, but I wouldn’t like it to grow by avoiding the tax that I owe.” It would be easy for people to say that. It is clear that some people lack a moral compass. Where they are taking decisions to engage in aggressive tax avoidance, the Government must legislate so that they can no longer do so—to provide that moral compass for people and make sure that the tax is paid when it is owed. We must have the best possible tax rules in place. We must simplify the tax code. We must crack down on evasion, and we must legislate to reduce avoidance. The Government are in an untenable position: they cannot continue to implement austerity while leaving a tax gap.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

We note that many of the tax avoiders do not avoid using our roads, our schools and our hospitals, and they certainly do not avoid using the police to look after their lumps of money, here, there and everywhere.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend from the Western Isles. People, however much they are earning and however much tax they are paying, are using public services. Our party aspires to have brilliant public services. We aspire to have people working in our public services who are paid a reasonable amount and do not have to face a pay cap. The only way we can provide the public services and benefits system we want is by having a system where people pay the tax they owe. We continue to call for this to be devolved to Scotland because we think we would take better decisions. In the absence of devolution, we would like the UK Government to take actual action, rather than just saying, “Look how great we are.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Finance Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I start by telling the House of the sad death of my predecessor, Frank Doran, who was the MP for Aberdeen North and other Aberdeen seats during a career of about 30 years in Parliament. Mr Doran was incredibly well respected across the House. People who worked with him will remember him and will have respected his work. He was a principled man. He helped a lot of people who are now my constituents, and they often talk fondly about him. In particular, he worked incredibly hard in the aftermath of the Piper Alpha tragedy; he did a huge amount of work on that. Our thoughts are with his wife Joan, his family, and his friends and colleagues from across the House. I pass on the Scottish National party’s condolences to his family.

I do not want to talk at length about offshore trusts. The SNP has consistently been critical of the situation around non-domiciled individuals and offshore trusts and of the complicated nature of the UK tax code. It is regularly said that the tax code used to be a book but now someone would need a van to cart it around. The problem with that is the potential for loopholes. In addition, the more complicated it is, the more difficult it is for people to comply and for Government agencies to ensure compliance. We have raised those issues.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about not conflating tax dodging with non-doms. I am not attempting to do that, but the more complicated the tax code is, the greater the likelihood of loopholes that people can exploit. We have concerns about that; we raised them last year in the context of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and we will continue to raise our concerns around non-domicileds and offshore trusts more generally.

There are occasional suggestions from Conservative Back Benchers that we move the UK towards being some sort of tax haven, post Brexit. We completely reject that, as do some in the Conservative party.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Is the hon. Lady saying that she would not like people in Britain to enjoy lower taxes, if they were possible?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was talking about tax havens; I think people have a good understanding of the difference between a tax haven and a country with lower taxes. It is completely reasonable to say, as individuals across the House do, that if we want excellent public services that best serve our population, we need a tax system in which people pay for those excellent public services. I am not in any way trying to dodge that; I think that we should have a tax system that ensures that we have excellent public services.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the hon. Lady not see the opportunity with Brexit to stop large businesses using European laws to game our tax system, and instead to get them to pay a fair share of taxes and give the hard- working people of modern Britain a tax cut?

[Kirsty Blackman]

As for the opportunity with Brexit, Scotland will be £30 billion worse off as a result of it. My city will be the worst off place in the UK outside the City of London—that is according to work done by London School of Economics and Political Science on the cost of Brexit; it is not a biased point of view. I do not see positive outcomes for the UK from Brexit. On the tax code, I want to make it clear that we reject moving towards a tax haven Britain and anything that could increase the number of loopholes. We are pleased about the Government’s anti-avoidance changes; we would like them to go further, but that will always be the case, and we will always say that to the Government. We are pleased that they are making positive moves, and pleased with some of their anti-avoidance measures. I agreed with almost everything that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), said about non-domiciled people and offshore trusts. We will support the Labour party if it pushes new clause 1 to a vote.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

As I am sure you agree, Mr Speaker, we all love a familiar tune that we can hum or whistle along to, the bars and notes of which come effortlessly to mind, so I imagine that a warm feeling of familiarity washed over all Members when they heard the tune being played by the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). It was the familiar one about the Conservatives not taking tax seriously, being on the side of tax dodgers and so on. We have heard it so many times.

It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman using this gargantuan Finance Bill as a stage from which to play that tune. It brought to mind that wonderful 1970s Morecambe and Wise sketch with André Previn; I do not know whether you are familiar with it, Mr Speaker. Eric Morecambe is at the piano; discordant notes are flooding from it, and André Previn says, “Stop, stop! You’re playing all the wrong notes.” Eric Morecambe replies, “No, sweetheart; I’m playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.” That was an awful accent; I apologise. The hon. Gentleman was not playing the right notes, and definitely not in the right order. Some of the claims made by Labour Front Benchers are built on sand. Far from being on the side of tax dodgers and tax avoiders, this party in government has put measures in place that have generated an additional £160 billion of tax revenue since 2010, and the Bill will, if enacted, bring in additional billions of pounds to the Treasury, so the hon. Gentleman was singing the wrong notes.

Yes, moves to close the tax gap were initiated by a Labour Government—it would be churlish not to concede that—but far from preventing or rowing back on the closing of the tax gap, this Government have continued the pressure to make sure that the gap between the taxes that should be collected and the taxes that are collected continues to decrease. As a Conservative, I am proud of this Conservative Government’s role in ensuring that the people who should pay taxes do, and pay at the appropriate level.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was absolutely spot on when he said that it is corrosive when we start blurring the definitions of tax avoidance and tax evasion. When we talk about people who act in a financially pragmatic way, completely within the law, in the same way that we talk about conmen and criminals, it sends a massively corrosive message, at a time when the world is getting smaller, in terms of where people can base themselves and their business.

While it is perhaps fun for Opposition Members to vilify people who transact their business internationally and can choose where in the world to rest their head at night and to make them sound like—to be topical—a Halloween villain, that is counterproductive. Although each individual utterance will make little difference, they combine and build to create the background music of intolerance of international business and successful people that will ultimately mean their locating somewhere else. Rather than getting the tax income from them that this country deserves, a different country will generate those tax revenues. A pound—or a euro or dollar—that is taxed somewhere else in the world is a pound that cannot be used by this Government to pay for the public services that we value and the public servants who deserve our thanks and reward.

It may feel superficially pleasant to see an international business, an international business person or a non-domicile flee from these shores. People may say, “If they do not want to be here, let them go.” It is a nice soundbite but ultimately it is massively counterproductive to the job that we should be doing as parliamentarians and that the Government should be doing in office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

Again, I would be very careful to separate out tribunal awards that are made in the context of discrimination at work, which is not what we are talking about, from awards that might relate to redundancy, which is what we are focused on. In relation to discrimination generally, there has been a long-running discussion about what the rates should be for different bands. If one looks at the average award, or, even better, the median award, we are not talking about massive sums of money. It is very important that the public receive that message. For example, someone who has experienced discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is generally receiving much less than £10,000—I regret that I cannot recall the exact figure. It is very important that we do not give the impression that people are somehow holding companies to ransom in this area. Indeed, that is perhaps underlying some of the change that has been forced on the Government through the court decision that we should not have tribunal fees, because these tribunals are being used not vexatiously, but purposely for people to protect their rights at work.

In conclusion, Labour’s message on this Finance Bill is clear. We felt that it offered an opportunity to reboot our economy, to deal with our massive productivity challenges and our cost of living crisis, and to shore up public finances by sealing loopholes for the very best-off people and biggest multinational companies. Instead, we have a series of missed opportunities and measures focused on soft targets, rather than on those who can afford expensive accountants and engage in complex schemes to avoid tax.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The House will be delighted to know that I do not intend to speak for very long. We have discussed this matter a number of times before. It is important to note that this measure is a revenue-raising one; the aim is to make £430 million for the Government. However we paint it, these workers are facing redundancy. They are receiving the pay-out at the same time as losing their jobs, so they are vulnerable by their very nature, and are having to think carefully and reassess how they go forward. This additional money will go to the Government, rather than to these workers who are being made redundant. For that reason, the Scottish National party will support the Labour party’s calls, particularly those regarding termination payments.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the hon. Lady put in that category, for example, Fred Goodwin, who received a £2.7 million advance on his pension as part of the package he received when he left the Royal Bank of Scotland?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am not sure that that was a redundancy payment that would be counted in this category. I do not know the tax status of the gentleman, or how much tax he would have paid on that or any other payments he received. It does not appear as though the Government are looking to pursue such people. It seems that they are looking to make tax changes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The coalition had the chance to do something about Sir Fred Goodwin. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Kirsty Blackman]

That was before my time in this House. I am not sure what power Parliament would have had regarding the payments. I obviously do not think that somebody who has demonstrably not behaved very well should get huge sums of money as a result.

The SNP has been clear about our position. We feel that the measure does not offer the protection we would like for workers who are being made redundant. The Government understand that this is our position, and we ask them to make moves on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend rightly raises one of the approaches that could be deployed to ensure that VAT is paid: the split payment system, whereby the platform itself is responsible for collecting the VAT and passing it on. That is certainly something, along with other measures, that we are considering.

It has been a pleasure debating this group of amendments. I hope that hon. Members are satisfied on the points we have discussed and I urge the House to reject the amendments and new clauses tabled by Opposition Members.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I think we are all slightly bamboozled by the order in which this part of the debate has happened. None the less, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak.

We have raised concerns about Making Tax Digital and we will carry on doing so because we have issues with the way in which some of these things are being implemented. I appreciate the fact that in Committee the Minister took the time to answer questions about lack of internet access. I am still not 100% clear about the position for those people who have only intermittent access to the internet. I understand what he was saying about those people being able to make a case to HMRC about why they cannot, through the Making Tax Digital scheme, do quarterly reporting. However, I am still not convinced that the language on that was robust enough to protect any of my constituents who, because of their internet connection, are unable, for example, to reasonably undertake the quarterly reporting that is being asked of them. If he is able to come back on that and clarify the position, I will be grateful. The point he made in Committee was useful, but possibly not strong enough in that regard.

The other issues we have about Making Tax Digital concern those people who are in particularly rural areas and who therefore struggle with lack of access to technology and the internet and with doing the quarterly reporting. There are also people who do not have access to HMRC offices in the way they used to. We have raised all those concerns. I have said that I am pleased that the Government have changed the way and the order in which the implementation is going to happen. The SNP is not against Making Tax Digital and quarterly reporting, but we have concerns and we want to ensure that our constituents and businesses in our constituency are protected.

On that note, we said in our manifesto this year that we would support the phased introduction of Making Tax Digital. I want to be clear that we will not, therefore, support Labour’s amendment 11, which is the tack that we also took in Committee. We would not want to vote against something that is a manifesto commitment.

New clause 2 is on commercial property and non-doms. The statements that I made earlier about the issue of non-doms and about the concerns regarding the complexity of the tax code and possible loopholes in relation to that, apply exactly in this regard. I am pleased that the new clause has been tabled by the Labour party, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), I think. I say that quietly in the hope that I have got the constituency right. I am pleased that this has been put forward. Constituents have got in touch with me and several of my colleagues about this. The Scottish National party has previously raised concerns about the taxation of non-domiciles, and we will continue to do so, in particular around some of the loopholes. We will support new clause 2—many of the constituents who wrote to me will be delighted about that—and I am pleased that this matter is on the table and being debated today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am delighted to be in the Chamber to talk about the second of the three Finance Bills we will have this year. When the Chancellor stood up and said we would move to having fewer fiscal events a year, I am not sure that this is what he had in mind. I am particularly excited about the third one, which will be coming along soon, and I really hope that it takes account of Brexit because the Government’s Finance Bills have so far failed to do so. I hope we will have a Budget that takes account of the economic shock that will happen as a result of Brexit, puts in place the infrastructure spend that we particularly need and makes it clear that we should stay in the single market.

On our specific concerns about this Finance Bill— I saw you getting a bit edgy, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will get on to it—I agree with Labour Front Benchers that there have been a number of missed opportunities, and we still have concerns. We have previously mentioned these concerns, but they bear repeating because this place is good like that.

The first issue is VAT on police and fire services. This Finance Bill should have taken the opportunity to remove the VAT paid by Scottish police and fire services. We have made this case time and again and we will continue to do so. I hope that the Chancellor will listen and make changes in the Budget. We would like the VAT that police and fire services have paid to be paid back, and we would like the VAT bill to be got rid of in the future. There is a precedent for doing so—other organisations do not have a VAT bill—and we will carry on making this case very strongly.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes the interesting point that this is not simply about making a change for the future, but about repaying the money that has been overpaid for some years. Will she re-emphasise to the UK Government the message that we are not simply looking for such a change, but want paid back that which should never have been paid in the first place?

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is absolutely the case, and I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this point. It is very important that the Government recognise that Scottish police and fire services never needed to pay this money and that they give us back the overpayments that have been made. Frontline police and fire services are losing out as a result of those organisations having to pay VAT.

I have a couple of other points specifically about the Bill. We have already raised the issues involving termination payments, which Labour Front Benchers did a very good job of highlighting. I am very concerned about the impact on vulnerable people and those who have lost their jobs and about the fact that this £430 million tax take for the Treasury means there is £430 million less for people who are made redundant.

I say again that I am pleased by the moves the Minister has made in relation to changing the implementation and phasing in of digital reporting. I appreciate his making it clear that tax measures put in place by the Treasury and implemented by HMRC are constantly under review. My concern is that even though it is said that these things are constantly under review—that is always said during the passage of Finance Bills—there is very little evidence of any reviews actually happening. Certainly, the majority of the reviews that do take place are not made public, so we cannot see the impact of those tax measures. I have done some digging and asked the Library about these matters, but as I say, very few of the reviews have been made public. It would therefore be good if the things the Minister has said will be under constant review were actually under constant review and if that could be shared with Members across the House and not just, for example, people working within HMRC.

I gather that the changes to elections for removing fields from petroleum revenue tax have widely been welcomed by the industry. In two successive Finance Bills, successive Chancellors have committed to changing the tax regime for decommissioning assets, so that it will be easier to transfer late-life assets to a new clearing in the market, which is very important in maximising the economic recovery of the North sea fields. I say again that Chancellors have promised that twice, yet action has not been forthcoming.

The Chancellor has said that the results of the review will be in the Budget. I do not want him to back away from the commitment that he has made. It is very important for the oil industry, not just in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, but for the hundreds of thousands of people who are employed in the industry across the United Kingdom. It is very important that it does happen to maintain confidence in the industry. We have had a period in which things have not been great in the industry. Confidence is beginning to build again and this change would make a huge difference.

Something that we voted against in Committee and that we disagree with is the change to the dividend nil rate. It is being reduced from £5,000 to £2,000. The SNP has argued against that not only because it is the wrong way to go, but because it is being brought in too quickly. People who have set up a small business or become self-employed in the recent past may not know that this change will be coming in and hitting them very shortly, so they will not have built it into their business plan. I am concerned not that it will reduce entrepreneurship, but that it will affect people who have made finely balanced financial decisions about the future fairly soon. We raised those concerns in Committee. For me, this is the worst proposal in the Finance Bill—the one that I disagree with the most and that I would argue against the most strongly.

I have made the key point that the Bill ignores Brexit. I agree with those on the Labour Front Bench that the Bill ignores productivity. Every day, more statistics come out and more issues are raised about the lack of productivity growth in the UK and the ripples that that causes. The Conservatives keep saying how great it is that we have so many people in employment. The problem is that those people are not getting wage rises that even keep pace with inflation. People are getting poorer, even though they are working hard, sometimes in low-paid jobs, simply because wages are not keeping pace with inflation. That is a big concern for us.

When she came to office, the Prime Minister was very clear that she would try to do things for people who are just about managing. Over the past year or so, it has become clear that life for those people has been getting significantly worse. I would like this year’s Budget to take account of that, to take account of the fact that austerity has failed and to take account of the fact that people are poorer as a result of this Government’s policies and make moves to change that.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the fragmentation of the UK internal market would be damaging for the Scottish economy, particularly small businesses. This is not just an issue for Scotland, though. We all agree that protecting the UK internal market is in our shared interests, and the Government will work to make sure that there are no new barriers to doing business across the UK.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Staying in the UK internal market while the UK crashes out of the EU is set to cost Scotland £30 billion over five years, according to research by the London School of Economics published today. Aberdeen is set to lose the most, at 7% of gross value added. Will the Chancellor be clear on behalf of his Government that no deal is not an option?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have already said, the Government are preparing for all possible outcomes of the negotiations with the European Union, as any prudent Government would, but the Prime Minister has made it very clear that our strong preference is to achieve a deal, which is good for Britain and which protects British jobs, British businesses and British prosperity—by which I mean the jobs, businesses and prosperity of all of the United Kingdom.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On that note, 56% of EU nationals in FTSE 250 companies are highly likely, or quite likely, to leave the UK before the conclusion of the Brexit negotiations. What is the Chancellor’s assessment of the impact on the Scottish economy of all of this talent leaving the UK?

[Mr Hammond]

I am very confident that, whatever the outcome, all of this talent will not leave. The Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday that her top priority remains giving assurance to EU citizens living in the UK, which is why she is working hard to deliver a deal on citizens. It is the area in which our discussions with the European Union are most advanced. The hon. Lady has the Prime Minister’s personal commitment on the importance that she attaches to that area.

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

If I may, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific questions that he has raised about the consultation on these measures.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Petroleum revenue tax: elections for oil fields to become non-taxable

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is welcome that the Government are looking to reduce the administrative burden in relation to elections for oilfields to become non-taxable. That is positive news. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned in two Budgets that there will be changes in the taxation system to make it easier for late-life assets to be transferred. I have heard noises from the Chancellor in recent times that he may not introduce that in the autumn statement this year, and I will just make this pitch to the Minister. This issue is incredibly important. The oil and gas industry is not asking at this moment for significant changes, but for the change in relation to the transfer of late-life assets. I would very much appreciate it if, in the context of reducing the administrative burden and making things easier for companies dealing with the very mature field in the North sea, the Minister would hear my case on that and make the case to the Chancellor.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I must admit to being slightly confused about the purported impact of this change. Some of the inputs from stakeholder bodies seem to imply that there will be some kind of Revenue impact as a result of the changes in relation to procedures for elections for oilfields to become non-taxable. For example, Oil & Gas UK has welcomed the change, saying that the move will reduce the headline rate of tax paid on UK oil and gas production. In contrast, Friends of the Earth has expressed disappointment at the tax cut. As I understand it, petroleum revenue tax was permanently zero-rated in 2016, and the Government’s assessment of the measure’s impact on the Exchequer is that it will be negligible. Therefore, can the Minister enlighten us on why some people appear to view the measure as potentially having an Exchequer impact, but the Government do not appear to have that view?

--- Later in debate ---

Digital reporting and record-keeping for income tax etc

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 60, page 71, line 16, leave out ‘paragraph 2’ and insert ‘paragraphs 1A and 2.

1A (1) The provisions of this Schedule shall not apply to a person specified in paragraph 1(1) except in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph.

(2) No person shall be subject to the provisions of this Schedule unless they fall within a class of persons specified in regulations made under sub-paragraph (3).

(3) The Commissioners may by regulations specify a class of persons to whom this Schedule applies provided that the relevant conditions in sub-paragraphs (4) to (9) are met.

(4) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the first regulations may not be made until after the Commissioners have undertaken an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the provisions of this Schedule on—

(a) small businesses that have limited technological connectedness,

(b) businesses in rural areas, and

(c) businesses that are likely to have been affected by the closure of HMRC offices.

(5) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the first regulations may not apply to more than 25 per cent of persons to whom paragraph 1(1) applies.

(6) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the Commissioners have prepared an assessment of the likely effects of making regulations in the form of a draft which has been laid before the House of Commons by the Treasury.

(7) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the House of Commons has resolved that regulations should be made in the form of a draft laid in accordance with sub-paragraph (6).

(8) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the second regulations may not be made—

(a) until at least twelve months have elapsed since the making of the first regulations,

(b) unless, taken together with the first regulations, they apply to no more than 90 per cent of persons to whom paragraph 1(1) applies.

(9) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the third set of regulations may not be made until at least twelve months have passed since the making of the second regulations.’

This amendment would provide for a staged implementation of the provisions for making tax digital in relation to income tax, with review of impact on specific groups and provision for each new stage to be subject to approval by resolution of the House of Commons.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, in clause 60, page 75, line 7, at end insert—

‘(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) must in particular require a person or partnership to record service charges separately from other income.’

This amendment imposes a duty on HMRC to require separate records to be kept of service charges.

Amendment 8, in clause 60, page 75, line 7, at end insert—

‘(1B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) must in particular require a person or partnership to maintain separate records in respect of each employee and in respect of any prescribed time period of service charges received and to make those records available in a prescribed manner.

(1C) In sub-paragraph (1B), “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations.’

This amendment imposes a duty on HMRC to require separate records of service charges to be kept in respect of each employee and in respect of prescribed period to be made available in a prescribed manner.

Amendment 39, in clause 60, page 75, line 7, at end insert—

‘(1B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) must in particular require a person or partnership to maintain separate records in respect of each employee and in respect of any prescribed time period of service charges received and to make those records available to those employees.

(1C) in sub-paragraph (1B), “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations.’

This amendment imposes a duty on HMRC to require separate records of service charges kept in respect of each employee and in respect of prescribed period to be made available to those employees.

Amendment 33, in clause 60, page 78, line 19, after ‘day’, insert

‘no earlier than 1 January 2022’.

This amendment provides that the provisions for digital reporting in Clause 60 may not be brought into force before 2022.

Amendment 40, in clause 60, page 78, line 20, at end insert—

‘(4A) No regulations may be made under subsection (4) until after 90 days after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid a report before the House of Commons which sets out—

(a) the steps which HMRC has undertaken to establish that suitable software is available;

(b) the results of the testing by HMRC and others of that software; and

(c) the reasons why mandatory use of the software is in the interest of HMRC and taxpayers.’

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on software suitability and testing before giving effect to the provisions of Clause 60.

Clause 60 stand part.

Amendment 34, in clause 61, page 78, line 34, after ‘day’, insert

‘no earlier than 1 January 2022’.

This amendment provides that the provisions for digital reporting in Schedule 14 and Clause 61 may not be brought into force before 2022.

Clause 61 stand part.

That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 35, in clause 62, page 79, line 12, at end insert—

‘(5A) No regulations may be made under sub-paragraph (5) on a day prior to 1 January 2022.’

This amendment provides that the provisions for digital reporting in Clause 62 may not be brought into force before 2022.

Amendment 38, in clause 62, page 79, line 12, at end insert—

‘(5A) But no regulations may be made by the Commissioners unless the conditions in sub-paragraphs (5B) to (5D) are met.

(5B) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the first regulations may not be made until after the Commissioners have undertaken an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the provisions of those regulations on—

(a) small businesses that have limited technological connectedness,

(b) businesses in rural areas, and

(c) businesses that are likely to have been affected by the closure of HMRC offices.

(5C) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the Commissioners have prepared an assessment of the likely effects of making regulations in the form of a draft which has been laid before the House of Commons by the Treasury.

(5D) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the House of Commons has resolved that regulations should be made in the form of a draft laid in accordance with sub-paragraph (5C).’

This amendment would provide for implementation of the provisions for making tax digital in relation to VAT to take place only following a review of impact on specific groups and provision for regulations to be subject to approval by resolution of the House of Commons.

Amendment 36, in clause 62, page 79, line 19, at end insert—

‘(6A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not impose mandatory requirements for businesses to generate quarterly updates.’

This amendment provides that any system for quarterly updates to be generated must not be mandatory.

Amendment 10, in clause 62, page 80, line 13, at end insert—

‘(12) Before making regulations under sub-paragraph (5) and in any case within three months of the passing of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, the Commissioners shall lay before the House of Commons an assessment on the effects on compliance with the requirements of those regulations by small businesses of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.’

This amendment requires HMRC to publish an assessment of the effects on electronic VAT records requirements for small business of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

Clause 62 stand part.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Scottish National party has previously raised concerns about the moves to digital reporting. It is not that we do not support the principle of moving towards digital reporting. We have been clear that we think this could be a positive move. The concerns that we have raised previously have been about the timing of the moves and the way in which smaller companies were expected to move to digital reporting first. The Minister, to his credit, has changed the proposed plans and come up with a much more sensible direction and timeline for moving to digital reporting than the Government previously suggested.

Our amendment highlights specific concerns about the move to digital reporting, which, despite the Government’s changes and moves, we still feel have not been adequately answered. The amendment deals with the impact on specific groups that we feel might be negatively affected by the move to digital reporting.

The first group is small businesses that have limited technology for connectedness. There are small businesses that do not make that much use of the internet. There are some coming through that are wholly internet-based, and for which it is very important; but some are still starting that are not technologically advanced and do not use the internet much. We are concerned about the impact on them of having to report digitally online, in view of their access to technology. The businesses in question are not only in rural areas; they may just be run by someone who does not make huge use of the internet.

The second group is businesses in rural areas. In those areas in particular, even though commitments have been given by the Scottish and UK Governments about improving access to digital connectivity, at the moment not everyone has a fast enough internet connection to enable them to access the relevant services. If it is mandatory for businesses to use online digital reporting, that will be a problem for those without access to adequate technology—particularly in rural areas. Areas in England are affected, as well as those in more remote parts of Scotland. I understand that there have been Government commitments to get people on to digital systems, but we are not quite there yet.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, in areas such as the remoter parts of Scotland, as in areas of my constituency, broadband access can be intermittent? The Government have excluded from the provision those who are completely digitally excluded. However, there are areas with patchy broadband—people have it on some days but not others—and there could be a problem for people who do not fall in the group that the Government have excluded.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree. In Kingswells in my constituency, which is a large suburb of Scotland’s third city, there are significant issues about access to fast broadband. There is access to slow broadband, and it is sometimes intermittent, for reasons to do with historical infrastructure. Broadband companies were put on the grid to begin with and they now find it more difficult to upgrade the historical technology. I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady has made; it is important to note that for some people intermittent access can be as difficult as no access.

The third category of businesses we have chosen is those likely to be affected by the closure of HMRC offices. I have needed to do tax returns online only since I became an MP. The problem with some of the questions is that yes or no are the options but my answer has been “maybe” or “kind of”. Despite the fact that the online form was fairly clear, I needed to phone someone to get some advice on whether to tick yes or no. If businesses lack advice and information from HMRC about the correct option to choose in some cases, it will be more difficult for them to fill out the forms.

It is important that businesses should be given the advice, information and support they need to fill in the forms correctly online. I am sure that no businesses will be trying to make errors; they will be looking for advice. My concern, particularly regarding HMRC offices, is the lack of access to advice that people might have.

[Mel Stride]

The important point is that, for many years, people have not simply been walking into or getting an appointment at their local HMRC office. The fact that we are drawing offices together into 13 beefed-up regional centres is particularly important in the context of telephone advice, which the hon. Lady is alluding to and which will still very much be available for exactly the circumstances she describes.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the Minister’s point. In an earlier sitting, he mentioned the positive timelines when people phone HMRC for advice; apparently the phone is answered very quickly. I get that he says the statistics show that, but people are walking into my surgeries and into my constituency office saying that they have tried for hours to phone HMRC and have really struggled to get through. Despite him saying that the statistics show one thing, the lived experience of my constituents is very different. That is why I have these concerns, and even if one person or a handful of people cannot get through on the phone and fill in their form on time because they are not able to answer the question, it is a concern. I implore the Minister to continue working on call times and to ensure that, when people phone, they get through as quickly as possible and that the calls are answered, and that the advice provided is correct so that people can make the correct choice, particularly with online forms.

Labour Members have tabled a number of amendments to the clause. We were clear in the SNP manifesto that we supported a phased move to digital reporting, so what the Minister has proposed is now much more in line with what we were thinking. I ask that Labour Members, in speaking to the amendments, explain why they chose 2022, and I will make a call after that on whether we think supporting them is relevant. One Labour amendment suggests that we should not move towards digital reporting, which would be a concern for us because our manifesto commitment was positive about digital reporting. I look forward to hearing the comments from the Opposition and the Minister.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As ever, I am eager to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I come to the Committee with a series of amendments on what digital reporting might offer us to resolve some of the challenges faced by employers and employees in our country. There are two issues in particular, which I will come to in turn, because as ever with the Finance Bill, they are technical.

First, I will deal with the treatment of the lowest-paid staff in our country—Office for National Statistics data show that, of all low-paid people, waiters and hospitality staff get paid the least—and what we can do to help them with their incomes. Secondly, I will look at how digitisation could help us to address compliance, which is one of the biggest issues for small businesses. To prefigure the Minister’s comments, I know he will say that that is for another Bill, but given how important it is for the systems to work together, I think this is an issue for this Bill. I hope he will bear with me.

I turn first to amendments 7 and 8—amendments 8 and 39 are identical—which concern the treatment of waiters and hospitality staff. Many Members may be familiar with campaigns on the treatment of tips, service charges and gratuities and with evidence showing that some employers were using those to top up people’s wages and to avoid paying the national minimum wage. Members might therefore be relieved that legislation was brought in to prevent that, but it has become clear that many employers still use tips, service charges and gratuities to avoid paying their staff properly. The amendments go to the heart of how we can address that.

In particular, Members might not be aware that people are supposed to pay tax and national insurance on their tips. If an employee is paid their tips through a tronc, where their employer collects the money usually using an online system, which is what we are debating today, the employer is supposed not only to pool the tips and share them out—after all, I think we would all recognise that as well as the person who serves a meal, the people who work in the kitchen deserve recognition of their work—but to check that the employee has paid national insurance and tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady overlooks the fact that it is often possible for those who wish to complain to do so anonymously through their trade union or other representatives. That is what happens in many cases. HMRC does not have to rely on a specific complaint to conduct an investigation. It may have suspicions of its own for a variety of reasons. I do not think that we are in a position where people are unable to come forward, as she suggests.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has tabled two amendments that seek to review the impact of MTD on specific groups. I recognise her concerns, but the Government have been clear from the outset that businesses that are unable to go digital will not be required to do so.

If you will indulge me, Mr Howarth, it is worth looking at some of the detail of the Bill at this point. The hon. Lady has raised a very important point about potential digital exclusion. Clause 60 covers exemptions, as I am sure she is aware. New sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 14 of schedule A1 states:

“The digital exclusion condition is met”—

for those who would not be required to put in their returns digitally—

“in relation to a person or partner if…for any reason (including age, disability or location)”—

the hon. Lady rightly raised rural localities—

“it is not reasonably practicable”—

that is not the same as completely impossible—

“for the person or partner to use electronic communications or to keep electronic records”.

I think that is a well-crafted clause to catch the kind of circumstances about which the hon. Lady and I are concerned.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The concern raised by the hon. Member for High Peak was about intermittency. The issue is not about people who do not have access to the internet at all, but those who have only intermittent access. The clause may not be lenient enough for them to make a case for not having digital access. Does the Minister have a view on that?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her further point. I guess it comes down to interpretation. It seems to me that if it is not reasonably practical for a person or company to use electronic communications, the reliability of the service—another way of describing the point she raised—would be an important part of the judgment that would be made.

The clause continues with “Further exemptions”. Proposed new paragraph 15(1) states:

“The Commissioners may by regulations make provision for further exemptions.”

New paragraph 15(1) states:

“The exemptions for which provision may be made include exemptions based on income or other financial criteria.”

There is therefore a recognition in the Bill that not only do we need to get it right for the current circumstances, but we need the flexibility to be ready for any circumstances that might present themselves and which we have not considered at this stage. Those would need to be addressed further down the line.

For those who can go digital but require additional assistance, HMRC will continue to provide a diverse range of digital support, including webinars, helplines and YouTube videos, to help them meet the requirements of making tax digital.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North also seeks to provide for a phased implementation period, with the commencement of each new stage requiring approval by the House. We have already revised the implementation to start with businesses that report quarterly, and stakeholders are operating on the basis of the new timeline. We are phasing in the implementation by piloting the changes and by starting with mandation only for VAT and those above the VAT threshold. The secondary legislation required to lay out the detailed operation of MTD will be laid before the House in due course, offering Members a further opportunity to scrutinise our plans and consider our proposals.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow has tabled an amendment to require HMRC to publish an assessment of the effect of our exit from the European Union on MTD for VAT for small businesses. HMRC wants to give businesses plenty of time to adapt to MTD and is allowing for a full year of piloting the changes before mandation applies and before the UK leaves the European Union. If businesses wish to begin keeping their records digitally before we leave the EU, they will be able to do so.

The hon. Lady raised specific issues in respect of VAT and the 13th directive. The Government do not consider there to be an MTD issue here. MTD is about how records are kept and reported, rather than the nature of the VAT regime itself. The regulations will be consistent with the requirements of the 13th VAT directive, but if she has specific concerns, HMRC will be happy to look into them.

Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am afraid that we cannot. I call Kirsty Blackman.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank you, Mr Walker, and Mr Howarth for your chairmanship of this Committee. It has been excellent, as ever. I also thank all hon. Members—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East, who has sat through his first Finance Bill. It will possibly be the first of many. I think he hopes not, but we shall see. I would like to give special thanks to Miriam Brett, our researcher, who provided me and my hon. Friend with a huge amount of useful information, which we used during the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.