National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments in this group; I will speak briefly on them. Like many Members of your Lordships’ House, I share the general scepticism—indeed, hostility—towards the direction of travel of this legislation. Like others, I believe that, if the Government’s central mission is around economic growth as the stimulant, both with respect to the broader economy and from the point of view of public finances, this ultimately takes us very much in the wrong direction.

I appreciate, however, that that wider message is not what is before us today. The amendments before us are more nuanced and modest in their nature. They have been quite cleverly drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and others, and are designed not to make a direct challenge to the financial authority of the House of Commons. It is disappointing that the Commons took that approach but, nevertheless, these are respectful and well-drafted amendments that try to deal with this issue. Specifically, the Minister mentioned that one of the key considerations and intentions of this Government is the reform and protection of public services. That stated aim, at least, is one that I think all of us in this House would share.

Central to that is the provision of support for the National Health Service, to ensure that the necessary reforms take place to save it from the crisis in which it has been left. While many pieces in that jigsaw will need to be fitted in, central to any chance we have of improving the National Health Service will be dealing with social care. The two are inextricably linked. In particular, we will need to turbocharge the provisions that can be made on social care and also—as is contained within the amendment—on a range of related topics, from dentistry to pharmacies, so that the pressure can be taken off the front-line services of the NHS, including hospitals.

It is critical, both from a health perspective and an economy perspective, that we ensure the swiftest possible turnarounds in hospital stays. Too many people in our society are bed-blocking. That is not a choice that they wish to make and it is detrimental to our health service, to those individuals and to the economy. Therefore, it strikes me that we should be looking to take all measures that can possibly improve social care and improve support for hospital provision.

It seems to me that the proposed national insurance changes would be deeply detrimental to those sectors. Indeed, we have had warning after warning from people in those sectors about the impact that it will have. Therefore, I believe that these modest amendments at least an attempt to redress that. In their wisdom, the Government will tell us that they believe the change will simply be beneficial; it will bring in additional revenue without in any way damaging the social care system. Perhaps the wisdom of the Government is greater than that of many of us in this House. Therefore, we are not seeking to impose our views but seeking a much more modest proposition, which simply says: let us keep this under review and let us have the opportunity for the Government—should they be proved wrong on this issue—to make a swift intervention. That seems eminently sensible.

Similarly, with the amendment on small businesses—they will be the fuel of our economy and in many ways critical aspects which will impact on growth—the opportunity is there not to challenge the tax rises directly but to ensure that intervention can take place.

On the final amendment, if we are making legislation, ultimately it should be evidence-based, and that means not simply at the time when we are making it. What is the direct impact? To have a range of reviews across a number of sectors to see whether intervention is then needed seems to be an eminently sensible approach.

I suspect that, in an ideal world, many of us would have liked the amendments before us today to have gone much further, but they seem modest and nuanced in their nature and an attempt at an olive branch to the opposition that came from the House of Commons, so I urge the Government to take a common-sense approach and adopt these amendments rather than forcing us into a Division on them.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I have spoken in all other stages of this Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us of the rationale for it, which is the alleged £22 billion black hole which no independent economist can find. The OBR can find £9 billion—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

No, no independent economist. I would be grateful if noble Lords opposite would stand up and identify an independent economist who agrees with the £22 billion black hole—I will take interventions anytime.

When they came into office, this Government were left with the United Kingdom having the fastest growth in the G7. What happened after that was the Chancellor came in and talked down the economy dramatically. Legislation came in against non-doms and, as a result, 10,000 non-doms—equivalent to 0.5 million taxpayers—left the country. The Employment Rights Bill is raising its ugly head, frightening people, and the IHT effect on BPR and APR has been dramatic. There is a poll out today by Family Business UK of 4,200 family companies, and they have all said they will be cutting back on recruitment. This is what is facing our economy. It led to the shrinkage in GDP in January and it has now led to the emergency Budget, none of which will be helped by these NI increases at all.

As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has said, we have had cries of anguish from the third sector. The CEO of Thames Hospice has said that people will die in greater pain and anguish as a result of the effect of the NI changes on employment in hospices. Will the Labour Party Members vote, with head high, in the Lobbies to support this? Will they do so in the Commons? This Government will be constantly reminded of the damage they are doing to the social care sector, to the hospices sector, and indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said, to the small businesses sector. It is not too late. I hope noble Lords will think very carefully about how they vote this afternoon.

Closed-Ended Investment Companies: Cost Disclosure

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise the issues that the noble Lord raises. The Government’s view is that now that they have temporarily removed investment trusts from cost disclosure requirements, implementation is a matter for the industry. I recognise that there are some frustrations among the sector, but we believe that operationalising this legislation is a matter for the industry and the regulator.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as an investor in investment trusts and as a senior partner at Cavendish, which has written in to the consultations. It is quite clear that investment trusts offer members of the public the opportunity to invest in assets that would not otherwise be available to them and should be encouraged. The problem is that the rules were set in Brussels, and Europe does not have investment trusts. We now have the opportunity to do something bespoke and specific for us. Does the Minister agree that that will not be possible with the current structure that we have with the FCA and that it is now time that the FCA and, for that matter, FOS, were brought within government so that the situation as my noble friend Lord Forsyth explained it can be resolved?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think I can agree with the second part of the noble Lord’s question, but I absolutely agree that these vehicles do not exist in Europe and do exist in this country, which is exactly why the Government legislated to reform retail disclosure in the way that they did so that it is fairer, more proportionate and more suited for UK markets.

Finance Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I am really pleased to have a chance to make a short contribution to this debate on the Finance Bill and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, on her most eloquent and enjoyable maiden speech.

I have been the chairman of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee of the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House but we have not been invited to sit this year, which is a polite way of saying that we feel we have been discarded unceremoniously. I am really sorry that we have not been invited to prepare a report on the Finance Bill in the normal way. If we had, one of the areas I would have liked us to look at in depth is the OECD pillar 2 in the Finance Bill. As the Minister will recall, I have raised pillar 1 and pillar 2 a number of times in this House and in fact first raised them in 2013.

We are all pleased to see progress in this Finance Bill in Clause 19 and Schedule 4, building on the work of previous Conservative Administrations. It is disappointing to see that in respect of pillar 1, the digital services tax raised only £678 million in 2023-24. Does the Minister agree that this is too low? As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has mentioned, if the Government are keen to raise revenue, enhancing DST would be supported by many in both Houses, so it would be interesting to know what he might be thinking about that.

However, I accept that we are of course now worried by President Trump’s views on pillars 1 and 2. As the Treasury plans to raise some £2.8 billion from pillar 2, it would be interesting to know what plans the Government have to protect this figure given that Trump has said a list of protective measures will be drawn up by the United States.

I remind the House of my membership of the Chartered Institute of Taxation—one of the dreaded tax advisers that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, spoke about—and I am sure Ministers are aware of its observations on the transitional safe harbour routes. It called the top-up taxes of pillar 2 “complicated and burdensome”, so will there be further clarity on these rules? It would be good to hear that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, mentioned, the changes to tax of people formerly called non-doms have, unfortunately, proven to be a bit of a disaster. The temporary repatriation facility will have no material effect and in 2024, on a net basis, more than 10,000 millionaires left the UK, more than double the 2023 figure. That equates to over 500,000 average taxpayers, as each of them would have paid at least £400,000 in income tax alone last year.

A survey by Oxford Economics estimates that two-thirds of those remaining are thinking of leaving simply due to the tax changes and even the OBR estimates that 15% to 25% of the remaining non-doms may well leave. I cannot believe that the Chancellor’s estimates of raising £13 billion over five years from such people is right; in fact, it has been calculated that it will cost £1 billion, not make £13 billion. Has the Minister had a chance to revise the £13 billion in view of the hard fact that people are leaving the UK in much greater numbers than anticipated? The Minister may now be aware of serious concerns about deficiencies in the legislation regarding so-called double remittances. This needs to be urgently addressed in future Finance Bills.

It seems appropriate to mention national insurance, particularly given PMQs earlier today, where I think the Prime Minister was embarrassed to have to admit that the amendment that we tabled in respect of hospices had not been accepted in this House and has gone to the other place.

I am grateful to the Minister for once again mentioning the £22 billion. He mentioned “line by line”. He mentioned the OBR’s £9 billion, although he did not mention the £13 billion that no one can find. I cannot find one economic commentator who agrees with the Government, and he makes no mention of the underprovisions that always exist every year, which have been ignored by this Government.

Much of the “black hole” has been created by the Government folding to their bosses in the unions and paying public sector wages with no productivity gains, which is a disaster if you want growth as the NHS is included in the growth statistics. Once again, we have to question those claims. Indeed, on statements of economic competence, the last Labour Administration left government with the financial crisis and, of course, left a note apologising that there was no money left in the kitty. Let us not forget that.

So, as a result, private businesses are going to suffer now as resources are sucked out of them unnecessarily. The first few months of the new Government have been a disaster fiscally, with the unfortunate announcement on the winter fuel payment, the virtual riots on the streets by our farmers—normally the backbone of our society—and charities, social care homes and even hospices openly hostile to the Government.

Let us try to create a better environment for fiscal changes. It is clear that the Treasury has persuaded Ministers to apply taxes which previous Chancellors have wisely resisted. I hope they learn from this and chose to consult more widely before the imposition of new taxes.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that I take full responsibility for the misdrafting of the original amendment, and for not being sensitive to the legal differences between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the others who have supported him, and those in Scotland who were so concerned about what might happen to the care services there that they wanted to make sure that the language was reasonably perfected.

I am delighted to accept that amendment, but I am also very grateful that people came forward. It is good to know that we are sending something to the other place that is not holed beneath the waterline; I appreciate that. I also appreciate the vote that came in this House, which is not disrupted at all by this amendment, as people were very clear that they intended it to apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

I hope that I will be in a position to thank the Government for accepting this tidying-up amendment, understanding the spirit both in which it was offered and in which the previous debate took place.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I want to raise an objection to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which accused us of making amendments to spray public funding around. We made a number of suggestions as to how government could raise revenue in other ways, and government does flex itself, as we have seen in the increasing defence expenditure and reduction in overseas aid, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do outside of a Budget.

When the chief executive of a hospice says publicly that, as a result of this legislation, people may die in greater pain and agony than would otherwise be the case, I think it is perfectly reasonable for this to be drawn to your Lordships’ attention and for amendments to be discussed.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am concluding for the Opposition on this amendment. We are content with the amendment, which we see as a technical, tidying-up amendment.

Economic Growth: Public Spending

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect on economic growth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments before the Budget on the “public spending inheritance” and of the consequent rise in employer National Insurance contributions.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, it was this Government’s duty in the Budget last year to fix the foundations of the economy and repair the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We have always been clear that there are costs to responsibility; the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions will have consequences for businesses and beyond, but the costs of irresponsibility for the economy and working people would have been far greater. We are, of course, not satisfied with the growth rate. That is why we are going further and faster on economic growth, including through the measures announced in the Chancellor’s recent growth speech.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it seems the Government have no real idea of the damage the Chancellor has caused to the economy with her negativity and the ideological jobs tax. Perhaps they will listen to the CBI, which reports that expectations in the private sector are now the lowest in over two years, and private sector activity fell again in the three months to January. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation survey points to the most widespread weakening in demand for staff since the height of Covid in August 2020. The CEO said, somewhat damningly, that government actions are acting as “brakes on progress”. When will the Minister acknowledge that the Budget for growth and stability has produced the diametrically opposite result? If the Government are ideologically driven to extract cash from the private sector, there are much more business-efficient and tax-friendly ways of so doing.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, but his contention seems to be that we were wrong to be honest about the challenges in the public finances, and should instead have maintained the previous Government’s cover-up. He seems to be saying that we were wrong to deal with those challenges, and should instead have maintained the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Let me be clear: those are exactly the two ingredients—hiding from scrutiny and hiding from reality—at the heart of the Liz Truss mini-Budget, and we saw how that ended. If that is the noble Lord’s recommendation, I fundamentally disagree with him. We were right to restore honesty and transparency to the public finances, and we were right to repair them, which is why we took the difficult decisions that we did.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham, and to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. These amendments are not merely technical adjustments; they represent a critical step in recognising and supporting the social care sector, which remains indispensable to our society.

Amendment 47 proposes an increase in the employment allowance available to employers in the social care sector, raising it from £10,500 to £20,000 per tax year. This increase is of profound importance. Our social care providers are grappling with rising operational costs, staffing challenges and the ever-present need to deliver high-quality care to some of our most vulnerable citizens. By enhancing the employment allowance, we are providing smaller employers with essential financial relief that will help to sustain their operations in the light of the brutal national insurance increases, retain skilled and valuable staff and invest in the quality improvements that our social care users so desperately need.

For too long, the funding constraints on social care providers have meant that many have had to make painful compromises, such as reducing staff numbers, cutting back on training or deferring vital infrastructure improvements. These compromises ultimately diminish the quality of care provided and place additional strain on an already overstretched system. Increasing the allowance would acknowledge that social care is not a peripheral service, but a core pillar of our public support system, deserving of the same robust backing as the NHS, which is being compensated for the additional NICs charges.

Moreover, this amendment recognises the unique cost structures within the social care sector. Unlike other industries, social care providers face significant regulatory and operational burdens. They must meet stringent care standards, invest in specialised training and often operate in environments where margins are exceptionally thin. They are the backbone of a sector that touches so many lives. The Local Government Association estimates that the NICs charges create £1.77 billion in additional costs for councils, with £637 million for directly employed staff and £1.13 billion through indirect costs, via commissioned providers, including £628 million for adult social care alone. These are big figures.

There is also an important symbolic dimension to these amendments. By focusing on the social care sector, we are sending a clear message that the care of our elderly, our disabled and our most vulnerable is a national priority. This sector has often been on the back foot, underfunded and overlooked. Today we are recognising its importance and taking concrete steps to bolster it. In doing so, we honour the dedication of countless social care workers who deliver care with compassion, often under extremely challenging circumstances.

In conclusion, these amendments will provide a much-needed boost to the employment allowance for social care providers and introduce a mechanism of accountability that will ensure that the measures are delivering the intended benefits. They are a testament to our commitment to support a sector that is foundational in the well-being of our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these amendments, recognising that those struggling with disabilities and an ever-ageing community, partly thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, need our help. We need to invest in a stronger, fairer and more caring society.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 47 and my own Amendment 65, which is yet another request for an impact assessment. I raised the issues that small businesses and charities will have at our last session, but I shall focus on the social care sector, for some of the reasons that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has explained. This sector faces particular challenges, and to apply a one-size-fits-all to every employer in the UK is in this instance simply heartless and smacks of a policy rushed through without proper consideration of the particular issues in the sector.

The recent Budget, while providing additional funding to social care, does not go far enough to meet the needs of a sector facing increased costs from the rising national living wage and employers’ NI contributions. There is the £600 million grant, which we assume is to be shared between adult and children’s social care, but it is far from sufficient to address the estimated £3.7 billion increase in costs facing providers due to the changes announced in the Budget, which represent the 10.6% increase in pay from April 2025.

We know of course that councils will be expected to fill much of this gap through council tax precepts and local revenue, but, even with the £600 million grant, there is still a £1.3 billion shortfall that local authorities have. That figure relates only to the basic costs of providing care, with no consideration of inflation, the resources required to address ongoing workforce challenges, or the increased capacity, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned, of a growing ageing population. Because of this, there are reasons to believe that the estimates of a £2.24 billion gap for older person residential care is a conservative figure. If this is added to the homecare deficit, reported to be £1.76 billion, and the unquantified gap for working-age adults, the total gap between the average fee paid by local authorities and the actual costs of providing care could be significantly higher than the £4 billion.

I appreciate that these figures are so large that it is possibly difficult to take them all in and relate to them. If I may, I shall look on a micro basis at organisations I happen to know about personally. I am sure that each of us has a connection with such an organisation locally. In my case, I have connections with Jewish Care, which is Anglo-Jewry’s leading health and social care charity for the Jewish community in London and the south-east. It touches the lives of 12,000 people every week—including, of course, Holocaust survivors.

Jewish Care operates nine care homes, which provide a range of services, including fabulous residential care and also dementia care, mental health care and nursing care. It manages four retirement living schemes and an assisted living scheme, nine community centres and three centres for people living with dementia. My interest is that I was a trustee of Jewish Care, and I am still a proud fundraiser for it. I have been a patron for more than 25 years. I am grateful to Jewish Care for sharing with me its concerns, which reflect those of the whole industry.

In context, Jewish Care raises some £20 million in revenue donations—voluntary gifts. The total increase in workforce costs as a result of this Budget is estimated by Jewish Care at £1.1 million. The increase in the percentage for NICs from 13.8% to 15% increases the workforce costs by £400,000 and the lowering of the threshold, which we all know about, results in a further £700,000—hence £1.1 million.

Of course, it is disproportionately affected because it is a large employer with very many part-time staff. The immediate impact is that carers’ salaries will not be raised, as would otherwise have been the case. It will also force the charity to make choices about how care homes are operated and, just as importantly, to divert investments in other community-focused services. One specific example is that, until the announcement of the NI increases, it was planning to open a much-needed dementia day centre. It was all planned and ready to go, but these additional costs have forced Jewish Care to put that on hold. This is real damage that the Government are causing to people’s lives, and it is particularly poignant because both Wes Streeting and the Prime Minister proclaimed themselves, as recently as last June, just before the election, to be huge supporters of this charity and its objectives.

Pension Fund Reliefs

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Following the excellent question from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on pensions, I am not asking my noble friend the Minister to meet me, but I am asking him to have a look at the British ISA idea, whereby tax-free savings could be focused on British companies. I know that the Labour Party is keen on investment in British companies, as we all are. Will he look again and promote the idea of a British ISA?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am flattered to be referred to as the noble Lord’s noble friend, and I consider him to be a friend as well. I am more than happy to look at his ideas.

Low and No-Tax Jurisdictions

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on securing this debate. He has allowed me to claim in the future that he has been talking bananas, but he knows I have too much respect for him to do that.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Coffey on a truly excellent maiden speech. She has served as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, while representing her Suffolk coastal seat. She is known to love jazz, and as anyone who has been to the Conservative Party conference—which I thoroughly recommend to all noble Lords—knows, she excels at karaoke. In this House, I am sure she will have “the time of her life”—some will know why I say that—which, had I sung it, Hansard would not have recorded, so I think I got away with it.

I hope my noble friend has turned off the alarm on her phone, because I do not want my speech to be interrupted by “I Vow to Thee, My Country”, which I gather has happened in the past. There is a rumour that she and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, are lobbying for a cigar smoking room to be created on the Terrace—I am not sure about that—as she brings gender equalisation even to this area. What she brings to this House, apart from anything else, is much-needed business experience. She is really welcome; it was an exceptional maiden speech, on which many congratulations.

This debate features one of my favourite subjects. The Minister knows of others, which he will be pleased to know I will not refer to, but I will focus on two areas, which I believe will generate more tax and revenue for the United Kingdom, because we are keen to work together so to do. The subject that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has put forward was the subject of my maiden speech in 2013, made in response to the report from the then Economic Affairs Committee. I have spoken a few times on BEPS, as explained so well by my noble friend Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is quite right to bring it up.

The UK has implemented several legislative measures to address profit shifting by multinational companies and has adopted BEPS measures recommended by the OECD, including the hybrid mismatching rules. These rules prevent tax advantages from differences in tax treatment of entities or instruments between countries. For example, a payment can be treated as a tax-deductible expense in one country and the receipt considered a tax-exempt dividend in another.

Then there is the UK corporate interest restriction, which limits the amount of tax relief that companies can claim on their net interest expenses to the higher of £2 million or 30% of EBITDA. It is a very powerful method of preventing private equity avoiding tax. Then there is the diverted profit tax, which was introduced in 2015. This targets profits artificially diverted from the UK, as it imposes a 25% tax on profits deemed to be diverted through schemes.

When I first qualified as a chartered tax accountant—which was much to everyone’s surprise, particularly my father’s, at the time—it was the controlled foreign companies rules which were the hot new area. They came in in 1984—I qualified in 1985—and were significantly reformed later, in 2012. These rules aim to prevent UK companies shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions by taxing the income of foreign subsidiaries of UK resident companies. There has of course always been the transfer pricing rules, which ensure that transactions between related parties are genuinely conducted at arm’s length, and HMRC has issued guidance on that as recently as September 2024.

With all this going on, why are we having this debate? It is because of the OECD’s pillars 1 and 2. The UK has one of the most robust anti-BEPS regimes in the world, largely due to measures taken by the previous Conservative Government, but also subsequent actions by the Labour Government. The OECD has led moves to eliminate BEPS since 2012. From the BEPS report in 2015, the UK has implemented pretty much all the material recommendations and closed a number of loopholes. The UK has implemented the first phase of pillar 2 and is implementing the second phase. The UK was one of the group of nations implementing at the very earliest date, along with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and all of the EU countries.

But now, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has indicated, somewhat shockingly perhaps, the US has pulled out of both pillars, and this leaves our Government in a quandary. Do we want to avoid retaliation or do we stick to our guns? We have discussed pillar 1 and pillar 2 at length in this House. A number of us were keen on the digital services tax, or DST, and we tried to persuade the Government that it was time to tighten it up. The argument given to us against this was the John Lewis argument: that if you are not careful, you attack shopkeepers trying to sell their products online, as opposed to marketplace providers which simply facilitate a sale.

At the time, I worked very hard with a very able tax adviser, Glyn Fullerlove, who drafted the legislation—which would have worked—but there was no political impetus to implement it, mainly because we all thought that DST would be a temporary tax while pillar 1 and pillar 2 were properly implemented. This does not look like it is going to happen. Will the Minister look at the DST rules afresh? In his opinion, are they still fit for purpose? Hard choices need to be made on DST—I believe it raised only £380 million last year and might raise about £800 million this year. Given that the Minister wants to help companies grow and raise more revenue, perhaps he might have another look at DST and see whether or not it should be enhanced.

On a practical matter, will a consequence of pillar 2 having no force or effect in the US be that US multinationals will no longer share information with non-US subsidiaries? If they do not share this information, it makes pillar 2 compliance and in particular the understated profits rule tax—UPRT—almost impossible. Has the Minister asked the US multinationals with a presence here whether they will have this information from their head office? I appreciate that the UPRT, which yields some £2.8 billion, will be harder to give up—indeed, it should not be given up—but it would be helpful to hear the Government’s plans for it, given that the information collation may be extremely difficult.

Another related area that I also believe can be of assistance to HMG in raising revenue is the undertaxation of profits in the UK by VAT evasion of offshore online retailers, which is a form of profit shifting. I am very grateful to Richard Allen, the heroic figure of RAVAS, for all his hard work in this area. As we know, bad actors are selling goods online under £135 to evade VAT and to gain a competitive advantage over law-abiding businesses both abroad and in the UK. Distortions of competition caused by the evasion of VAT cause significant harm to domestic retail, both on the high street and online. This harm in turn damages the UK economy through reduced tax revenue, subsequent employment and so on.

Despite recent legislation, which a number of us worked on, there are still obvious flaws in the ID verification system operated by Companies House, and HMRC has essentially enabled bad actors to easily obtain UK company registrations and thus VAT numbers. We have all read about thousands of letters arriving at a flat in Swansea as a result of overseas actors trying to create artificial UK companies. They are pursuing negative and fraudulent behaviour that is essentially the evasion of VAT, and thus shifting profits overseas.

Currently, HMRC has no effective mechanism for enforcing VAT on imports below £135 in value. Import VAT is no longer due on business-to-consumer non-excise goods sent in consignments valued at £135 or less. It is assumed that overseas businesses have complied with the UK legislation that obliges them to register for UK VAT, but that assumption is entirely unenforceable and a coach and horses are driven through it.

Some constructive ideas—such as a passport scheme where you simply put a sticker on every good that can be scanned as it comes in—are around but have not been enforced. It is true that some measures have been introduced, but there remains a significant and immediate problem. Can the Minister look at this urgent issue afresh and perhaps accept a meeting with Richard Allen of RAVAS, so that we can generate the appropriate and correct revenue for HM Treasury and continue the fight against evasion of VAT?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on securing this debate, and thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I also take this opportunity to join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on her maiden speech and welcoming her to your Lordships’ House.

I will seek to set out the work that the Government are doing to uphold internationally agreed principles of fair tax competition and protect the UK against profit shifting by multinational companies. If there are any specific questions raised during the debate that I am unable to answer now, I will happily write to noble Lords.

I start by underlining our commitment to growth—the number one mission of this Government—and how the corporate tax system can help deliver this mission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned, we had to take some difficult decisions in the Budget last year to restore stability to the public finances. These were not decisions that we wanted to take, but they were necessary to clear up the mess we inherited. We recognise that this has impacted some businesses and has had impacts beyond business, too.

However, in last year’s Budget we also published a corporate tax road map to provide the best possible conditions for incentivising business investment, which is the lifeblood of a growing economy. That road map caps corporation tax at 25% for the duration of this Parliament—the lowest rate in the G7. It maintains our world-leading capital allowances system, including permanent full expensing, and the £1 million annual investment allowance. As a result of permanent full expensing, the independent OBR has forecast that business investment will increase by an extra £3 billion each year. Permanent full expensing solidifies the UK’s position at the top of the rankings of OECD countries’ plant and machinery capital allowances and among the most competitive capital allowances in the world.

The corporate tax road map also maintains generous R&D tax reliefs that will support an estimated £56 billion of business R&D expenditure. It is a road map to provide predictability, stability and certainty to business and investors from around the globe, while generating the revenue needed to invest in Britain. It comes after several years of cliff edges in investment allowances and multiple changes in rate policy, all of which have undermined global confidence in our corporate tax system. Despite the difficult fiscal position, our capital gains tax rate also remains internationally competitive and the current top rate is lower than it was between 2010 and 2016.

The Government’s objective is to maintain an internationally competitive tax system, where businesses pay their fair share of tax in the UK. As noble Lords know, under the current international framework, taxing rights are generally allocated to countries based on where the physical activities of a given business are undertaken. However, businesses rely increasingly on remote business models that allow companies to operate in and make considerable revenue from a market without a physical presence there. This is particularly true of firms providing digital services.

Added to this, business models are increasingly complex and globalised in nature, with businesses often operating in a number of jurisdictions. Intangible assets, such as intellectual property, can also be transferred to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions more easily than physical goods. These changes are improving competitiveness and dynamism in the global economy, but we now need to ensure that our tax system, much of which dates back over a century, adapts to this changed environment.

According to the OECD, lost global tax revenues now total $100 billion to $240 billion annually—equivalent to between 4% and 10% of global corporation income tax revenues. This is why the Government are committed to addressing unfairness in the international tax system and protecting the UK against base erosion and profit shifting, where it exists.

We have a range of different measures in the UK tax code to ensure that this is the case. For example, measures on transfer pricing ensure that companies do not manipulate prices between related parties for tax reasons. Controlled foreign company rules, which the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, mentioned, prevent multinationals shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions using controlled foreign subsidiaries. Our anti-hybrid rules tackle tax avoidance strategies that exploit differences in the tax treatment of financial instruments or entities across jurisdictions, and our corporate interest restriction rules limit the amount of interest expense that a UK company can deduct from its taxable profits. HMRC conducts rigorous in-depth inquiries to ‎ensure that multinational companies comply with these rules, and it also works closely with international partners to gather intelligence and tackle serious and deliberate non-compliance.

Profit shifting and base erosion is a global issue by its very nature, which is why the UK has supported efforts to strengthen the international tax framework. The most significant of these is the OECD’s inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting project, as explained by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lord Sikka. As other noble Lords have set out, this framework is the result of over 135 countries and jurisdictions working together, and comprises two pillars.

Pillar 1 looks to provide for a more stable and certain international tax system by addressing the issue I raised previously; namely, updating the system of international taxing rights to reflect the digitised nature of the economy. Under plans currently being discussed, a new system would be introduced whereby certain taxing rights are reallocated to market jurisdictions, as opposed to where the company is based.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, asked about the Government’s position on pillar 1 and the digital services tax. The Government continue to support an agreement on pillar 1 and, as a temporary measure, the UK’s digital services tax currently applies a 2% levy on providers of search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces, reflecting their UK activities. We look forward to working with the new US Administration to understand their concerns around the digital services tax and consider how these can be addressed in a way that preserves the policy objectives.

The noble Lord also asked about the VAT paid by online retailers. To summarise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, set out, since 2021, overseas retailers are requested to register for VAT on supplies of low-value imports below £135. Where an overseas seller sells goods via an online marketplace, the marketplace is liable for VAT on goods of any value. The OBR continues to estimate that this will raise £1.8 billion by 2026-27.

Pillar 2 of the OECD inclusive framework reforms, also known as the global minimum tax, is already an internationally agreed common approach. It creates fair conditions for attracting inward investment, while protecting countries’ tax bases from large multinationals shifting their profits to low-tax jurisdictions. It does this by requiring multinationals that generate annual revenues of more than €750 million to pay an effective tax rate of 15% on their profits in every jurisdiction where they operate. Where their effective tax rate falls below this, these companies will pay a top-up tax. This effectively imposes a floor on tax competition between jurisdictions.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, the Government are currently legislating for the final part of the pillar 2 agreement through the Finance Bill. The undertaxed profits rule will ensure that firms cannot evade their responsibilities under the global minimum tax.

The pillar 2 agreement is historic in its scope and reach and has been implemented, or is in the process of being implemented, by the UK, all EU member states, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and others. The UK is forecast to raise more than £15 billion over the next six years from pillar 2 to support our public services and help grow the economy.

My noble friend Lord Sikka and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about executive orders relating to pillar 2. While I know that they would not expect me to give a running commentary on every executive order or decision made by President Trump and his Administration, the UK will of course be open to discussing concerns and ways to alleviate these in a way that upholds the policy aims of pillar 2. To reiterate—here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—this is an international agreement signed by over 135 countries after many years of detailed negotiation. We believe it represents a fair approach to how countries compete for cross-border investment.

The UK operates a comprehensive network of tax treaties to ensure the correct allocation of taxing rights between jurisdictions. Alongside pillars 1 and 2 of the OECD scheme, we participate in a range of other tax transparency arrangements to protect the UK tax base. These include the country-by-country reporting arrangements, which require large companies to provide a detailed report of their income, taxes paid and other financial activities on a country-by-country basis.

We have committed to implementing the crypto asset reporting framework to facilitate the automatic exchange of information on ownership and transactions in crypto assets. The UK is leading international efforts to co-ordinate transparency and the exchange of beneficial ownership, including through registers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, touched briefly on the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. I recognise that that is a much longer debate but I will briefly say this. The elected Governments of the Crown dependencies and inhabited overseas territories are responsible for many fiscal matters, including tax. They are committed to upholding international tax standards. All Crown dependencies and those overseas territories with a financial centre have become members of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting. They have implemented the common reporting standard, and they all meet the standard necessary for the exchange of information on request.

My noble friend Lord Sikka and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about country-by-country reporting. As I have said, the Government are a strong supporter of greater tax transparency and efforts to ensure that multinational groups are appropriately taxed in the jurisdictions in which they operate. While public country-by-country reporting could have a role to play in supporting those objectives, the Government believe it is important that any action be co-ordinated at the international level to ensure that it is comprehensive and consistent and avoids competitive distortion.

The arrangements I have already set out sit alongside the steps this Government took at the Budget last year to protect the UK tax base and close the tax gap, which is the difference between the amount of tax owed and the amount that is collected. The measures in last year’s Budget represent the most ambitious package ever to close the tax gap, making sure that everyone who should be paying their tax is doing so. Overall, the package is expected to raise £6.5 billion in additional tax revenue per year by 2029-30. We will achieve that by investing £1.9 billion in HMRC staff and modernised IT systems, including recruiting an additional 5,000 compliance staff. This includes additional resources for HMRC transfer pricing specialists, focused on preventing multinational profits shifting.

I will briefly address the question asked by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Our plans include new proposals to close the offshore corporate tax gap. We will consult on lowering the thresholds for exemption from transfer pricing for medium-sized businesses to align with international peers, and we will seek views on introducing a requirement for businesses in scope of transfer pricing rules to report cross-border-related party transactions to HMRC.

My noble friend Lord Sikka questioned the size of the tax gap. The Government have set out data for the domestic tax gap, which has been published online, as well as initial statistics on individuals with undisclosed foreign income. We will continue to be led by this data, and we remain committed to closing the tax gap, both domestic and offshore.

This Government support fair global rules on tax competition which protect the UK against profit shifting and base erosion. Through the action we are taking domestically and through international bodies, including the OECD, we are ensuring that these rules keep pace with the changing nature of global trade and the development of digital technology. In doing so, we are being guided by our number one mission: higher and more inclusive economic growth. That growth must be underpinned by fairness in the global tax arrangements, which is at the heart of our approach, and it must be delivered through a competitive domestic tax regime, which is precisely what our world-leading corporate tax road map will help to achieve.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down—admirably well within his time—I think his answer in respect of my VAT point relates to NETPs, non-established taxpayers, rather than taxpayers who falsely claim to be in the UK. I invite him to consider that particular point further, because I believe it will raise billions of pounds for HMRC if that loophole is addressed. Secondly, he very elegantly sidestepped the issue of the digital services tax. Again, while the Government are in negotiations with the US, which could stretch on for years, there is an opportunity in the meantime for us to have a look to see what extra revenue we can raise through digital services tax.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I have set out as much as I am able to at the moment on the noble Lord’s latter point on the digital services tax, but I will happily raise his point on VAT with my colleague the Exchequer Secretary. We will write to the noble Lord on anything that we can usefully add.

Non-domicile Status

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the economic impact of their plans regarding abolishing non-domicile status, which will now be modified following the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are making elements of the non-dom reforms simpler and more attractive to use while retaining the structure announced in the Budget. We do not expect these changes to impact the £33.8 billion of tax revenue which the OBR forecasts will be raised over five years from this Government’s and the previous Government’s changes to the non-dom tax regime. These changes reflect continued engagement with stakeholders to ensure that these reforms operate as intended.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

It is clear to me and many others that the Government do not have any idea of the amount of loss to the Revenue that the tens of thousands of people leaving this country—ultra high net worth people—will have. Adjusting the temporary repatriation facility just simply will not cut the ice or move the dial at all. I know of one City firm where 20% of the executives have left. Does the Minister not realise that insisting on subjecting wealth created and parked offshore to UK inheritance tax will drive former non-doms out of the UK? That will leave the Labour Government with a real £22 billion black hole.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, as always, for mentioning the £22 billion black hole. He mentions lost revenue. I remember the noble Lord telling me when my party was in opposition that our policy on non-doms would not raise any revenue, but in fact cost money. Just a few weeks after that, his Government performed a screeching U-turn and scored over £20 billion by implementing our policy, when they adopted it as their own. He was mistaken then, and I am very confident that he is mistaken now. The costings certified by the OBR for the previous Government’s and this Government’s reforms account for a potential behavioural response. But I do not recognise at all the figures that the noble Lord gives, which are purely speculative.

National Insurance: GDP

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The question of which debates the House has is not a matter for me—I think that is somewhat above my pay grade—but my noble friend is absolutely correct to say that we hear consistent demands from the party opposite for more and more spending, but they never seem to be willing to tell us exactly where the funds for that will come from. Of course, that is exactly why we ended up with a £22 billion black hole in the public finances: because they never took the difficult decisions to pay for any of their promises.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I may only have an economics degree but, none the less, that makes me an economist in the way things are currently. As such, the OBR has made it clear there is no £22 billion black hole, which is why there is the same response from this side of the House. But what is clear is that £40 billion has been taken from the private sector to the public sector. Companies have to respond to that. Their only choices are either to increase prices, which they are, to reduce wage increases, which they are, or to reduce investment in jobs and other capital items. As a result, of course, the PMI is at its lowest level since 2009 and, within 24 hours of the Budget, the gilts went up 40 basis points. Can the Minister explain that and can he also please address the issue of care homes? I am involved in a charitable care home which has received a £1.5 million extra bill. We do not know how we are going to pay that bill. I will not name the care home, but I will take this opportunity to wish the Minister a happy Hanukkah.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his last comment and I obviously say the same to him. I am also grateful to him for raising the £22 billion black hole again. He is possibly the only Member of this House who mentions it more often than I do and he will be absolutely aware of the outcome of the OBR’s review. It conducted a review into a meeting it had with the Treasury on 8 February, when the Government were obliged under the law to disclose all unfunded pressure against the reserve. The OBR’s review has established that, at that point, the Government concealed £9.5 billion. The OBR made 10 recommendations to stop this ever happening again, which this Government have accepted in full. But, of course, the previous Government still had five more months left in office and they continued to amass unfunded commitment after unfunded commitment that they did not disclose. By July, records show that that had reached £22 billion. The noble Lord asked a number of subsequent questions and I simply ask him: is he seriously saying that we should not have repaired the public finances? Is that his serious contention? That is absolutely what the Liz Truss mini-Budget did and we saw exactly how that ended up.