Double Taxation Convention: United Kingdom and Mauritius
Mel Stride Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
A protocol to the Double Taxation Convention with Mauritius was signed on 28 February 2018. The text of the Protocol is available on HM Revenue and Customs’ pages of the gov.uk website and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The text will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
[HCWS513]
Draft International Tax Enforcement (Bermuda) Order 2017
Draft Double Taxation Relief and INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT (KYRGYZSTAN) ORDER 2017
Mel Stride Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Tax Enforcement (Bermuda) Order 2017.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Kyrgyzstan) Order 2017.
Mel Stride
May I say, Mr Hosie, what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? The draft orders deal with a replacement tax information exchange agreement with Bermuda and our first double taxation agreement with Kyrgyzstan. Both statutory instruments bolster the United Kingdom’s long-standing network of international tax agreements.
The UK has had a tax information exchange agreement with Bermuda since 2007. That arrangement has allowed for the exchange of information on request between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Bermudan tax authorities. Under a further agreement, signed in 2013, certain financial account data are received automatically by HMRC directly from Bermudan financial institutions. The draft order will supersede that further agreement and replace the tax information exchange arrangement from 2007.
The new instrument allows for automatic exchange of bulk financial data. This important change ensures that the UK continues to align with current international tax transparency standards. Bermuda will provide HMRC with an increased amount of information on UK taxpayers. Bermuda has the status of a UK overseas territory, but it is a separate jurisdiction, with its own elected Government, and is responsible for its own domestic fiscal policy. Thanks to UK leadership, Bermuda is committed to global tax transparency standards. This instrument is an important part of Bermuda’s commitment to those standards and will enhance HMRC’s ability to check the compliance of UK taxpayers who have financial affairs in Bermuda.
There are no other substantial changes between the old instruments and the one proposed. It, too, reflects the model developed by the OECD. This Government are committed to maintaining an extensive network of tax information exchange partners and agreements, which are an essential aspect of securing UK tax revenues.
The fluid exchange of information between jurisdictions is a key tool in the arsenal of international tax co-operation. Since 2010, HMRC has secured more than £2.8 billion from those trying to hide money abroad to avoid paying what they owe. The arrangement under consideration will assist HMRC in maintaining its strong track record of countering tax avoidance and evasion.
The UK has not had a double taxation agreement with Kyrgyzstan since it gained independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991. It was Kyrgyzstan that suggested we rectify that situation. It first requested talks in 2008 and repeated that request to us in 2013, citing a desire to open up its economy to promote economic development. For our part, we were keen to close a gap in our DTA coverage in the region and ensure that UK businesses could compete on an equal footing with businesses in comparable countries that had already concluded DTAs.
The agreement reached will improve the business conditions for UK companies and individuals operating and investing in Kyrgyzstan, while reflecting that nation’s status as a developing country. The rates of withholding tax are reduced to 5% for interest, royalties and dividend payments to direct investors; the rate under domestic law in Kyrgyzstan is 10%. In addition, the agreement permits the taxation of services where they are performed in a country over an extended period—a feature of the UN model tax treaty. However, there are no unwelcome provisions permitting the taxation of leasing payments on a gross basis that either impede commercial activity or increase costs for consumers. The resulting treaty is therefore a good compromise that will encourage investment in Kyrgyzstan by UK businesses, to the benefit of both economies.
I trust that the explanations I have given are helpful. The orders strengthen the UK’s taxing framework on many fronts, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mel Stride
Perhaps I can respond to the speakers in reverse order and start with the hon. Member for Glenrothes, whom I thank for his comments. I am pleased that he welcomed appropriately the greater transparency and provision of information to HMRC that will flow from the order in the case of Bermuda. He raised the issue of tax transparency, but Bermuda is a sovereign country with a democratically elected Parliament that makes its own decisions in those contexts.
However, we have worked closely with Bermuda, particularly in respect of the work carried out by the European Union, to ensure that we further that transparency process. Most recently, the EU confirmed that sufficient progress is being made in that regard. Bermuda has embraced common reporting standards, which both Members on sides of the Committee welcome, to ensure that information is provided to other tax jurisdictions.
The hon. Member for Norwich South made a number of points. I was pleased that he welcomed common reporting standards and its early adoption across the overseas territories, as we do. He raised the general issue of low-income countries and the benefits or otherwise of entering into such agreements when they are negotiated with a high-income country.
I would point out that Kyrgyzstan requested the arrangement after all, and was under no compulsion to enter into any agreement as negotiated. The big benefits to a country such as Kyrgyzstan are in the medium to longer term. Various studies, such as one conducted by Vienna University, have looked at the economic impact of withdrawing withholding taxes, of lowering taxes, and of providing the kind of certainty that businesses require when they consider where to invest internationally. That is an important medium to longer-term consequence for those countries of this kind of arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the anti-abuse provisions in the order and made specific reference to the BEPS project. The treaty was concluded before the BEPS arrangements came into effect, but there are anti-treaty shopping elements in the order to ensure that those anti-abuse provisions are robust.
The hon. Gentleman is right that there are no mandatory arbitration provisions in the treaty, because constitutionally Kyrgyzstan is not permitted to enter that kind of arrangement. We have respected that. He is right to say that there have been some delays. It has taken time to go through the stages of the negotiation, partly because the Kyrgyzstan Government requested various technical changes along the way. There were also some issues about language and translation because the agreement had to be very, very precisely translated into three languages.
On that basis, I hope the Committee will agree to these orders.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Kyrgyzstan) Order 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Kyrgyzstan) Order 2017.—(Mel Stride.)
Oral Answers to Questions
Mel Stride Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The Government are undertaking a wide-ranging set of analyses of the impact of our departure from the European Union. This is changing through time as we develop our approach and we move to a bold and comprehensive agreement with our EU partners.
Geraint Davies
The Chancellor knew in 2016 that the majority of people would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard Brexit. I am referring to remainers, plus people such as the Foreign Secretary, who said he favoured a single market and would vote for it. Now that the Chancellor knows that a hard Brexit will cost us £45 billion in lost tax receipts, will he at least acknowledge that people such as me on both sides of the Chamber who support our remaining in both the customs union and the single market do so in the name of prosperity and of upholding democracy?
Mel Stride
The Government have made their position very clear: we are leaving the European Union, and that means we are leaving the customs union and the single market. However, we are determined to negotiate a deal under which our trade with the EU27 is as frictionless as possible and we are able, as a globally facing nation, to secure free trade agreements with other countries around the world.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the Conservative Government are and will continue to be the voice of British business, and that securing a strong economic future will be at the heart of the Brexit negotiations?
Mel Stride
I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed for that question. I can of course confirm that we remain entirely committed to the strength of our economy and to supporting businesses up and down the country, not least in our negotiations with the European Union. I have some responsibility for the customs part of the negotiations, and we are committed to making sure that goods and services move as frictionlessly as possible across the boundaries with the EU27 following our departure.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Mr Speaker,
“I believe that the best way forward is for Britain to renegotiate a new relationship with the European Union—one based on an economic partnership involving a customs union and a single market in goods and services.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade on his website. What representations has the Minister had from the Secretary of State in support of our membership of the customs union and single market?
Mel Stride
The Secretary of State for International Trade is fully committed to the options that we set out in last year’s White Papers on the customs union and on trade. We are taking forward legislation to make sure that our aspirations in that respect for our negotiations with the EU can be landed when the deals are concluded.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Yesterday, I met a delegation of business representatives from my constituency who are optimistic about our prospects when we leave the single market and customs union. They are examining the concept of a free port for Immingham. Will the Minister agree to meet them when they have further developed their thoughts so that we can try to overcome possible obstacles?
Mel Stride
I—or, indeed, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend and the business colleagues from his constituency. We are potentially interested in free ports and will keep the idea under review.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Many Cabinet members have made their views clear about the single market and customs union. The Chancellor has said that he would like to see no tariffs with Europe after we leave the EU and no hard border in Northern Ireland. His exact words, which were in a letter to the Treasury Committee, were that he wants a deal
“that facilitates the freest and most frictionless trade possible in goods between the UK and the EU, and allows us to forge new trade relationships with our partners in Europe and around the world.”
Will the Financial Secretary therefore welcome the speech that the Leader of the Opposition gave yesterday in which he proposed a new UK-EU customs union that would, to quote the Chancellor directly, facilitate
“the freest and most frictionless trade possible in goods between the UK and the EU”
and allow us to
“forge new trade relationships with our partners in Europe and around the world”?
Mel Stride
I am here to speak about Government policy, as you have quite rightly indicated, Mr Speaker. However, if I may say so, Opposition Members’ zig-zagging in respect of their position on the customs union has been quite extraordinary. If I understand what is being suggested, it seems to me, at a first take, that the idea that we can be in the customs union yet go out and have a high level of control over deals and free trade arrangements with other countries just does not hang together.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced an additional £1.2 billion for Wales in the Budget. We maintain our position of ensuring that Welsh Government funding per head is some 15% or more above the rate in England. As a consequence of those and other measures, Wales is now one of the fastest growing of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
Chris Davies
Does my right hon. Friend agree that leaving the UK single market would represent a far bigger risk to the Welsh economy than leaving the EU single market?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is a simple fact that some 80% of Welsh exports go to the other nations of the United Kingdom, compared with just 12% going into the European Union. Those figures speak for themselves.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Traditionally, Wales has lower wages than the rest of the economy. In the light of low productivity and growth forecasts, what are the Government doing to attract high-quality jobs to the Welsh economy?
Mel Stride
As the House will know, we are doing a great deal for productivity throughout the country. We have agreed two city deals in Wales, with £500 million for Cardiff and £115.6 million for Swansea. Since 2010, employment in Wales is up by 7.3% and unemployment is down by 39%.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
My question is this: what investment? The Government have broken their promise to electrify the main line between the two main cities in my country, they will not commit to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, and the Swansea Bay city deal is 90% Welsh public and private money. At the same time, the Government are subsidising the most expensive railway in the world—in England. When will the British Government stop taking Wales for a ride?
Mel Stride
I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman level those accusations against the Government because, as I have explained, we set aside an additional £1.2 billion for Wales in the recent Budget. I have referred to the two city deals, and we are also backing the south Wales metro, as he will know. We are committed to agreeing further growth deals with north and south Wales.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The Government are committed to driving up investment in Scotland; my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced an additional £2 billion at the last Budget. We have already boosted city deals by £1 billion and have committed further to looking at city deals in Stirling, Tay Cities and the borderlands.
Andrew Bowie
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will share my concern, and that of my constituents, at recent statistics showing that trend-based productivity in Scotland had declined by 3.2% in the year end to September 2017—well below the levels of the UK and its lowest level in eight years. Does he agree that instead of making Scotland the highest-tax part of the UK and increasing the tax burden on businesses, the Scottish Government should be encouraged to follow this Government’s lead—encouraging enterprise, boosting economic development and growing UK productivity to its highest levels in 10 years?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the critical issue of productivity, which is, of course, the responsibility of not just this Government but the Scottish Government. I totally agree with him about the tax matter that he raised. It is important that we keep taxes down. To the extent that that has been achieved in Scotland, it has been to a large degree because of the changes we have made to the personal allowance—a decision taken by this Government in this House.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
In 2010, we had a post-war record level of deficit at 9.9%, and we have reduced that to 2.3% as of last year. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in November is that the deficit will further decline to 1.1% of GDP by 2022-23.
Robert Courts
Will the Minister give an estimate of the effect that our deficit reduction measures have had on relieving the tax burden for younger generations?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend raises a critical point about the importance of getting the debt down to make sure that future generations do not carry the burden of it. That is why we have reduced the deficit by three quarters and why we are going to hit our reduction in the level of debt as a percentage of GDP two years early, in 2020-21.
Mr Sheerman
Mr Speaker, you will know that I am not the most radical Member on the Labour Benches, but I want to tell the Minister that if the Government had been successfully reducing their budget, my constituents in Yorkshire could forgive her. The fact of the matter is that we have had the money for the electrification of the trans-Pennine railway stolen from us, and the Chancellor refuses to give it back. When will he make amends?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Gentleman will know, whether he is young or a puppy or whatever he may be, we are awaiting the business case for the trans-Pennine project, and when we receive it, we will look at it most closely.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
As a Minister at the Treasury, I am delighted if people voluntarily step forward to pay more tax than they are due. I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that that is already possible by way of a gift to the Crown. I am looking at ways of raising awareness of that particular opportunity, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss such options. I would also point out to right hon. and hon. Members the very generous gift aid reliefs that the Treasury provides for those who wish to make direct payments to charities of their choice.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Mel Stride
The Government believe that work is one of the most important drivers of bringing people out of poverty, and we are rolling out universal credit as a consequence. There is evidence that that is more successful as a way of doing so than relying on legacy benefits. As the right hon. Lady will probably know, 200,000 fewer children are now in absolute poverty than was the case in 2010.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
Mel Stride
I am delighted to inform the House that considerable progress has been made in reducing the level of tax evasion, avoidance and non-compliance in the corporate sector. We have been at the forefront of initiatives launched with the OECD—the base erosion and profit shifting initiative, the profit diversion tax we brought in in 2015—and, as a consequence of clamping down in this area, we have brought in £53 billion from big business since 2010.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Ryanair has announced the slashing of more than 20 Glasgow airport routes, a cut of more than 1 million passengers and the loss of up to 300 jobs. The high level of APD and the delay in introducing the air departure tax—caused by this Government’s not notifying the European Commission regarding the ongoing exemption for the highlands and islands—have been cited as a reason. Another is the Brexit uncertainty in the aviation sector. With more routes and jobs likely to go, what are the Chancellor and his colleagues doing to support the aviation sector during Brexit negotiations?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the devolution of ADT has been delayed after consultations between ourselves and the Scottish Government. Both Governments are satisfied with the arrangements. As for Ryanair, I believe that part of the announcement was also that the company would be extending the number of routes out of Edinburgh airport.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
If we want a sustainable rise in wages, we will need higher productivity. Does my right hon. Friend therefore welcome the recent improvement in the figures?
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Artificial intelligence brings huge economic opportunities, but to date big tech companies have seemed even more likely than traditional corporates to engage in aggressive tax avoidance and concentrate power in the hands of a narrow, homogenous group of people. What will the Treasury do to ensure that companies in this growing industry pay their own way fairly and take account of their wider corporate responsibility to society?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady will know that we made announcements in the Budget in respect of the taxation of digitally based businesses that operate from digital platforms and so create value as a consequence. We are consulting on the measures we may take. We said in our consultation document that it is possible we will look at revenue taxes as one particular approach. Our preference is a multilateral move with our partners in the European Union and the OECD, but we are prepared to go it alone if that proves necessary.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The services sector makes a huge tax contribution to the public purse. What confidence can the Chancellor give to my constituents who work in financial services that our new free trade agreement will cover services as well as goods?
Draft Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2018
Mel Stride Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. As the Committee will be aware, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs continues to review extra-statutory concessions. This order is another step in that process, and it will put on a statutory footing four concessions that will simplify the administration of the tax system but ensure that minor reliefs continue to be available as before. I am grateful to those who took the time to help the Government to improve the legislation.
The first concession allows directors’ fees received by partnerships and companies to be treated for tax purposes as trading rather than employment income. That simplifies the accounting process of those fees for both the payer and the recipient.
The second concession is similar, in that it allows professional practitioners, such as doctors, dentists and solicitors, to treat incidental income from an office or employment as part of their trading or professional income. That, again, simplifies accounting processes for taxpayers.
The third concession exempts from tax certain compensatory payments made to volunteers and voluntary office holders of public bodies. The fourth concession concerns payments from local medical committees to part-time committee members. The order does not make explicit reference to that, but it is covered by the legislation for the other three concessions. The last two concessions mean that public bodies do not have to act as employers for tax purposes when making such compensatory payments.
I hope the Committee can see how valuable the concessions are in simplifying the tax system for employers and for individuals who provide their services and expertise to others. There is no issue of tax loss here, as the sums paid under the concessions are either taxed as part of trading profits or do no more than compensate for loss of income in undertaking public service.
The draft order will come into force on 6 April 2018. I commend the order to the Committee.
Mel Stride
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution, for his support for the order and for his two questions. He is quite right. We consulted fully on this measure between 14 September and 9 November last year.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The consultation received only four responses. Is that normal? What were the processes for publicising the consultation?
Mel Stride
On those specific questions, which are very relevant and pertinent, I would be very happy to come back to the hon. Lady, if some information does not wing its way to me in the next moment or two. I intend to cogitate on the important point that she has raised.
In the meantime, I shall return to the shadow Minister’s two questions. I await some information on NICs and directors’ fees. [Interruption.] That information has arrived: there is no impact on NICs in respect of his question. He also raised the scope of the concessions, and the change from “small” to “insubstantial”. I am fairly confident that that rests in the guidance that HMRC operates on those matters, but I am happy to come back to him on that.
Having answered those two questions, I return to the question that the hon. Member for Rotherham asked. Is it normal to get just four responses? The answer is that that is not unusual, given that the consultation was a very technical one. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will agree to the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Mel Stride ExcerptsWednesday 21st February 2018
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2018 View all Finance Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 21 February 2018 - (21 Feb 2018)
Wes Streeting
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he makes exactly the point I have made since the general election. We put forward policies in our manifesto—by the way, they proved immensely popular across the country and led to a result that a lot of people were not expecting—and I think we should do a distributional analysis of such policies across the board to make sure that resources are properly targeted where they are needed.
In conclusion, we should not fear such information and evidence, which would lead to better-informed government. The greatest tragedy of this Prime Minister is not the fact that she is being held hostage by the hard Brexiteers on the right of her party; it is that she has not delivered on a single one of the sentiments in the fine words she said on the steps of Downing Street about creating a more equal society and tackling injustices that are still burning injustices even in one of the richest economies in the world in the 21st century. Sentiments are all well and good, but we need policies that are backed up by evidence and reason, and we need the ability genuinely to tackle the problems that the Prime Minister set out so long ago on the steps of No. 10, but which I fear she will never be able to implement before they boot her out next year.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
Before I plunge into new clause 9, as indeed I will at some length, may I concur wholeheartedly with the statement made by the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) when he praised civil servants for their impartiality, objectivity and professionalism? In my experience of the Treasury, I have always found them to be exactly that. We should all register that important point.
We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate. I hesitate to add that, on one or two occasions, it has been marginally informative. On one occasion—I will not name the Member—it was very informative because I actually learned something I had not previously known. The reason why it has been wide-ranging is that this is of course an extremely important issue. What I hope unites Members on both sides of the House is that every Member of the House deplores unwarranted inequality. It is not that we are all entirely equal—we are, of course, different—but we have a right to be treated with equal respect and a right to equal opportunity and aspiration, as it was eloquently termed my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland).
If I may, I will look at new clause 9 in a little detail. As I have suggested, it has been slightly absent from this debate, so let us bring it back to centre stage. The new clause seeks to require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide a
“review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
In so doing, the Chancellor has to look at a number of aspects of the impact of the Finance Bill now going through the House. Under the new clause, the review would look at
“the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income”.
As has already been pointed out at length, we have indeed brought back the household distribution analysis that looks at tax, welfare and public expenditure, and at the impact of those elements on different income levels by decile.
Under the new clause, the review would also look at
“the impact of those provisions on people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010)”.
This is perhaps a good moment for me to say something very important. Ministers of course always seek to operate within the law, and the Equality Act is very clear about our duties as Ministers when we consider various policies that come before us. Those policies are not just those before us in the context of a major fiscal event, but policies and decisions we take day in and day out, some of which never even pass through this House. We do so not just because of the law, but because we think it is the right thing to do.
Under new clause 9, the review would also look at
“the impact of those provisions on the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and…the impact of those provisions on equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.”
The new clause then focuses on the specific taxes covered by the assessment the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be required to present in the report. I want to make one important general point: in looking at regional aspects of spending and tax, it is far easier, for fairly obvious reasons, to consider the spending elements than the regional distribution when it comes to taxation.
Mrs Badenoch
Does the Minister agree that it would be so impractical to carry out such impact assessments that it would slow down Government business? Perhaps one of the reasons why the Opposition have tabled the new clause is to make it difficult for us to get our policies and the Finance Bill through.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention, because she touches on the important point that there is an element of proportionality. As I will come on to argue, one of the difficulties with accepting the new clause is that a lot of the information is not available. That is not an argument for not going out and finding the information, but some of it would be extremely difficult to generate. I would not go as far as my hon. Friend in suggesting that this is a Machiavellian plan to gum up the works of Government, but I am sure some Opposition Members might be pleased to see that happen. I take the new clause in the spirit of the wording in front of me.
Dawn Butler
I just want to help the Minister a bit. The Women’s Budget Group, the Runnymede Trust and lots of other organisations, as well as the ONS and HMRC, accumulate the data that would be needed, so the data necessary to carry out equality impact assessments are available. In fact, the Treasury does some assessments anyway.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is suggesting that one particular set of analyses is an ideal set to present, and can be seen as in no way misleading, but entirely robust and entirely objective. If we are to reach such a quality of data, we will have to achieve certain specific aims, and one of the aims is to deal with the fact that a lot of the analysis to which she is referring is very selective—it does not look at the entire picture. For example, some of the analysis reflecting changes in income tax may show a benefit for one sex over another, but it may not take into account the impact of increased spending on childcare.
Mel Stride
If I may finish this point, I will then certainly give way to the hon. Lady.
A lot of these analyses simply look at the static situation, without taking into account the fact that the measures we are bringing forward will in themselves have a dynamic effect on the economy—for example, by driving up employment. Several Members have spoken very eloquently about the record level of female employment at the moment. That is benefiting women, but the interaction of our policies with that benefit would not be reflected in such an analysis. I have already mentioned that a lot of the information being sought is very difficult to verify and very difficult to obtain, particularly where it pertains to protected characteristics, such as sexuality, gender reassignment and pregnancy. It is very hard to identify those groups and the way in which they are affected, particularly in terms of all the taxes in new clause 9—I will come on to them in a moment—that the Opposition want us to address.
Mel Stride
I will make a final point before I give way to the hon. Lady. It has been a long time since we have jousted, and I have missed it, so I will certainly give way to her. There is a very important point about the impact in particular on households, which is one of the major thrusts of new clause 9. It is very difficult to disentangle the effect of income that may go to one member of the household, but is of course subsequently shared across the household. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has itself highlighted that as a particular barrier to getting robust information. I will now gladly give way.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way, and for his kind words. I want briefly to mention that the Department for Work and Pensions does produce this kind of modelling for social security changes, which may be similarly complex in looking at the interactions of different elements, so why does the Treasury take a different approach? In relation to that, would not the assumptions be spelled out, so that any ambiguity could be made clear?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I bring her back to new clause 9. Whatever the DWP happens to be doing, whether it is right or wrong or whether it works, what we are facing here today and making a decision on is new clause 9. As I am working through new clause 9, I am arguing that it is not a practical way to seek to achieve that which the Opposition, quite genuinely and sincerely, are attempting to achieve.
Sir Oliver Heald
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would like to say a word about the extent of research the Treasury already undertakes and publishes. It is my understanding that more than 2,500 Treasury papers have been published, so it is really a question, is it not, of where we draw the line? If a piece of research is proving very difficult, and would be very resource-intensive and so on, that will obviously make it less likely to be done than if it is a more straightforward piece.
Mel Stride
Yes. My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. As I have already pointed out, around major fiscal events we have household distributional analysis, which covers welfare, taxation and public expenditure. It takes a cumulative approach to that information and it is often relied upon by Government to take subsequent decisions. We also have, on substantial individual tax and national insurance contribution measures, tax impact and information notes—the so-called TIINs—which were introduced in 2010 and were not there under the previous Labour Government. We are, therefore, doing a number of things, both in the context of major fiscal events and on a tax-by-tax, national insurance-by-national insurance change basis, which look to provide just the kind of information that informs decisions around equality.
The third part of new clause 9 relates to the taxes to which this analysis would apply. On income tax, as I have said, we are looking at impacts on households. We may raise the personal allowance, as we did in the last Budget. That is now up to £11,500. It could be argued that that disproportionately favours one sex over another, but when we look at the effect on the household, income is typically distributed within families, within households and within the family unit. That is extremely difficult—in fact, I would go as far as to say impossible—to capture.
Stella Creasy
The Minister made that point the last time we tried to discuss this issue. Forgive me, but he seems to be presuming that a household is a man and a woman. Has he managed to get his head around single person households and single women, because women’s incomes are disproportionately hit by Government policy? At the very least, could he manage to measure the women who are affected by his tax and policy changes who do not live with a man who might confuse him?
Mel Stride
If the hon. Lady can come up with a sure-fire way of identifying women who live with men who do not confuse them, we will probably make some progress. The point I am making is that this area is riddled with huge complexity, yet new clause 9 seeks to achieve the presentation of reports and assessments that have the imprimatur of Government and the Treasury upon them. They are relied upon to take very important decisions, yet the arguments I am prosecuting suggest that we would actually end up with an incomplete picture. In fact, I would go further than that and say that they could be misleading in a way that would be unhelpful to what I know the hon. Lady is seeking to achieve and indeed what the Government are also seeking to achieve.
Helen Whately
Does the Minister share the view expressed by many of us this afternoon that while those on the Opposition Benches are looking for very complicated analysis that may, unfortunately, be rather misleading, we actually have a very strong track record, if we take a step back, of reducing inequality and making things better for those on the lowest incomes?
Mel Stride
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We know that the gender pay gap is at its lowest level on record, for example. That is a very substantial achievement and we are making considerable headway in that particular respect.
Some of the other taxes mentioned in new clause 9 include employment and disguised remuneration. Disguised remuneration is a highly complicated area, as the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) will know, having discussed it in some detail in Committee. The mind boggles as to how one would possibly unpack the effects on the various protected characteristics of that particular taxation. Pension schemes are also extremely complicated. Settlements and air passenger duty are perhaps a little bit easier than some of the others, but the point is that overall—and we have to look at the new clause in its entirety—new clause 9 is extremely complicated indeed.
Finally, there should be no doubt that those of us on the Government Benches are entirely committed to ensuring that we drive the equality agenda and drive it very hard indeed. We should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) suggested, look to our own record in that respect. We now have more women in work than at any time in our history. In the past year, 60% of employment growth came from female employment. We have the lowest gender pay gap in full-time employment ever. Those companies employing 250 employees or more, as we have said often in this debate, are now required by law to provide a gender wage audit. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) suggested, there are teeth. Penalties can be applied by the ECHR, and fines can follow where that is not done. For those who are disabled, we spend a record amount in excess of £50 billion a year on benefits. As has been said by a number of Government Members, the national living wage has disproportionately helped some of the most needy in our society. When we talk about equality on this side of the House, we mean it. I urge the House to reject new clause 9.
Dawn Butler
Having a detailed understanding of how policy choices exacerbate or eliminate inequality at every stage of policy making is key to tackling burning injustices and producing good policies. I wish to put new clause 9 to the vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I have made a mistake, in that I thought the Minister had already addressed the House on this group. I also beg the Minister’s pardon.
Mel Stride
There was a ripple of dissatisfaction when you failed to call me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it was almost imperceptible. Thank you for correcting your error.
In this debate we have heard about a range of issues, including the changes the Finance Bill makes to the bank levy, the taxation of private finance initiatives, and tax avoidance and evasion. I will respond to each in turn, starting with the bank levy. Opposition Members have raised a number of objections to the changes to the levy made by the Finance Bill and to the Government’s broader approach to bank taxation. These are unjustified. This Government remain committed to ensuring that banks make an appropriate additional tax contribution, beyond that paid by other businesses, that reflects the unique risks they pose to the UK financial system and to the wider economy.
I shall address some of the arguments put forward by the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), which I felt focused far too much on the bank levy. It is indeed declining, but there is good reason for that. In 2015, when we took the relevant decisions on this, we recognised that the risks presented by our banks had eased quite considerably. Indeed, the Bank of England has recently carried out rigorous stress testing on the banks, and that was the first occasion on which not a single bank failed its stress test. That is indicative of the fact that one of the raisons d’être for the bank levy has started to recede. That is to say that the banks are less of a risk than they were before, and the charges on the assets and liabilities that they hold are therefore becoming less relevant. The hon. Gentleman did not focus so much on the surcharge to the banking tax, which came in from 1 January 2016 and which represents an additional 8% on the profitability of banks at the present time. Whereas corporations are paying 19%, we are now looking at a total rate of around 27% for banks.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but as we have said before, when we take both those measures together, we see that the reduction in the levy along with the surcharge results in a lower overall contribution over time. We have spelled out clearly in our previous debates that the overall amount coming from the banks is receding over time, even with the surcharge.
Mel Stride
That is not the case. I will explain some of the figures in a moment, but there are other elements that are not being taken into account. One is that the banks are not permitted to offset against their profits the PPI compensation payments. Also, they are now working to a more restrictive corporate interest restriction regime, under which they are allowed to roll forward only 25% of their interest chargeable to offset against profits. Taking all those measures together, we have raised some £44 billion more from the banks since 2010 than we would have done if we had treated them simply as any other corporate business.
Opposition Members have cited changes in revenue from the bank levy. They argue that this is declining, but it is misleading to consider bank levy changes in isolation when they form part of a set of wider changes to bank taxes announced in 2015 and 2016, including introducing the 8% surcharge. Overall, rather than reducing revenue, these tax changes are expected to raise £4.6 billion over the current forecast period. I think that the hon. Lady will be interested to hear that figure.
Anneliese Dodds
We have just looked at the projections up to 2022-23. For the current year, we see £3 billion coming in from the levy and £1.6 billion coming in from the surcharge. The projection for 2022-23 is £1.3 billion from the levy and £1.1 billion from the surcharge. That appears to be a significant reduction; in fact, it is almost half.
Mel Stride
Taking into account the respective changes, we will raise £4.6 billion over the forecast period as a consequence. My point is that it is simply not right to focus only on the declining part of the equation—the reduction in the banking levy charge—and not on the fact that we are raising more as a consequence of the 8% surcharge and the increased profitability of banks on our watch.
Mel Stride
Perhaps we can get into the nitty-gritty of this offline.
The average revenue from the bank levy between its introduction in 2011 and 2015-16 was around £2.6 billion. As a result of this package, however, yield from the surcharge and the levy in 2022-23 is forecast to be £3.2 billion. By 2023, as I have said, we will have raised around £44 billion in additional bank taxes since the 2010 election.
Opposition Members have also suggested that our bank levy is set at a low level compared with other countries. In fact, not all financial centres have a bank levy. The USA, for example, chose not to introduce one at all, and while several EU countries introduced bank levies following the financial crisis, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between these levies as the rules for each are different.
We have heard the argument this afternoon that we should reintroduce a tax on bankers’ pay. One of the aims of the changes to bank taxation announced in 2015 and 2016 is to ensure a sustainable long-term basis for taxing banks, based on taxing bank profits and the bank levy. By contrast, the bank payroll tax referred to in new clause 3 was always intended as a one-off tax. Reintroducing it would be ineffective and unsustainable compared with the package of banking tax measures that we have introduced. Even the last Labour Chancellor pointed out that it could not be repeated without significant tax avoidance.
Opposition Members also propose that HMRC should publish a register of tax paid by individual banks under the levy. Taxpayer confidentiality is rightly a core principle for trust in our tax system and HMRC does not publish details of the amount of tax paid by any individual business. While the Government continue to consider measures to support transparency over businesses’ tax affairs, we must balance that with maintaining taxpayer confidentiality in order to maintain public confidence in our tax system.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the transparency that is being sought is down to the public, demanding it? After all these years of difficulty, and at a time when so many communities face council tax increases of 5%, there seems to be an inherent unfairness in the tax system.
Mel Stride
I just do not accept that. This goes back to my point about the balance of measures that we are taking. The Opposition are understandably focusing on the bank levy, which is indeed declining over time, but I point to the additional 8% surcharge, which is 8% more on corporation tax than other non-banking businesses are expected to pay. As I have said, the banks are also not permitted to carry forward interest rate charges to the same degree as other businesses, and they are not allowed to offset against tax the compensation payments that they have been making. All those things add up to additional tax and by 2023 will have raised an extra £44 billion since 2010 compared with what would have been raised from non-banking businesses.
Matt Western
At the same time as corporation tax is being reduced overall—I accept the point about the bank surcharge—does the Minister not accept that we are seeing a significant increase in council tax for the public?
Mel Stride
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) pointed out, as we have reduced the overall level of corporation tax from 28% to 19%—corporation tax, of course, applies to banks as it does to non-banking businesses—we have seen the tax take increase by some 50%. We have actually been raising more revenue as a consequence of those changes.
Finally, new clause 5 would require the Government to publish further analysis of the impact of the Bill’s bank levy re-scope. The Government have already published a detailed tax information and impact note on the proposed changes, and we have published information, certified by the OBR, on the overall Exchequer impact of the 2015 package of measures for banks. It is important to legislate for such changes now in order to give UK banks certainty on their tax position so that they can plan effectively for the future.
The changes in clause 33 and schedule 9 complete a package of measures that raises additional revenue from banks in a way that delivers a tax regime that is more sustainable, more aligned with regulation and more supportive of the competitiveness of UK financial services. We should pass them without amendment.
In her amendments, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) calls for a windfall tax on private finance initiative companies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who outlined his vigorous work in this area in support of his constituents.
There are approximately 700 operational projects that originated under the initial PFI, representing £60 billion in capital investment. The vast majority of those projects were signed between 1997 and the 2010—620, or 86%, of all PFI projects in the UK were signed under the last Labour Government.
This Government have taken action to ensure that PFI contracts deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. That is why in 2011 we introduced the operational public-private partnership efficiency programme, which has reported £2 billion of savings. Even where it is not possible to find savings in a project, we are working with Departments and procuring authorities to improve day-to-day effectiveness and management of contracts. We have also made improvements through PF2 to offer taxpayers better value for money on new projects.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow argues that a windfall tax on what she sees as the excess profits of PFI companies would help to fund public services; I am clear that it would not. A retrospective windfall tax would instead do damage to any private investment in public services and would tax local authorities and NHS trusts rather than the providers it is intended to target. Even aside from those flaws, her amendments would not work as she intends, and I will set out why in more detail.
First, a windfall tax would cost this and future Governments who try to sign contracts with businesses, whether in PFI or in another area. This country has a hard-won reputation for tax certainty, and that important principle would be undermined by a retrospective tax targeting businesses that have legitimately entered into a contract with the Government. There would be extra cost for the taxpayer whenever the Government next needed to engage the private sector.
Secondly, as the hon. Lady knows, PFI contracts—she said that she has read many—are long-term agreements that typically include anti-discriminatory clauses. This means that when legislation is passed that targets PFI companies without applying to similar projects undertaken by other companies, the tax owed can be recovered from the procuring authorities. A windfall tax would therefore only be a tax on local authorities, NHS trusts and Government Departments that hold such contracts, which I am sure is not the outcome she seeks.
Amendments 1 and 2 propose that the bank levy could be extended to PFI groups, but PFI groups are not banks. Instead, they borrow money to finance projects and earn a return on them, in exactly the same way that many other businesses do. It is simply not possible to bring PFI groups within the scope of the bank levy. Most of the design of the tax could not be applied to such groups.
The changes proposed by amendments 3 and 4 also would not work as a windfall tax. The last Finance Act introduced corporate interest restriction rules to limit the amount of interest expense that a corporate group can deduct against its taxable profits. The amendments propose modifying those rules by limiting the ability of corporate groups to carry forward and offset their unused interest allowance against future profits. The limitation would apply only where the group contains a PFI company that has previously made profits that are deemed to be “excessive,” by reference to a statutory test. The changes proposed in the amendments are convoluted. As I have said, it would fall to the public bodies holding the PFI contracts to pay the extra tax resulting from these changes. But even if one could impose additional tax liabilities on PFI providers, this would not be a sensible way to proceed. It would be unlikely to change the tax paid by the PFI company, but would instead sometimes penalise other companies in the same corporate group. More likely, groups would simply restructure to avoid the tax.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I rise to speak to new clause 2 in my name and in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and I will say a few words about amendments 13 and 14 to schedule 3 that address a technical point of some importance raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who regrets that he cannot be here to speak to the amendments himself.
New clause 2 would ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce an independent, verifiable, non-political estimate of the yield that could be obtained by adding 1p in the £1—a 1% increase—to the standard, higher and additional rates of income tax. We are doing this not to give the Treasury computer some exercise—I am sure that it gets plenty—but to produce an estimate that we can all subscribe to of the revenue base that would exist for an earmarked tax to finance the NHS. This Report stage is clearly not the place to debate the NHS, but I want to raise the basic principle of how the Treasury might finance it.
In the middle of last year, the chief executive of NHS England produced an estimate that about £6 billion was required to keep the NHS on a sustainable footing and to avoid a serious winter crisis—this was about £4 billion for the NHS itself and £2 billion for social care through local councils. In the event, the Treasury, in its November Budget came up with about £2 billion—we can argue about how much of that was real, but let us say it was £2 billion—but we had the winter crisis in any case, and it has been discussed here on many occasions. We have heard about the long trolley waits, the elderly people waiting in hospital for placements and the stress on staff. We hope the winter is now over, although we cannot be absolutely certain of that. The issue I want to raise is how we prevent this situation from happening in the next financial year.
The proposal that we have an earmarked allocation of revenue from a small increase in income tax comes from a commission that my party set up, consisting of not just supporters but a lot of independent people with authority in the NHS. It includes the former chief executives of NHS England, of the Patients Association and of the Royal College of Nursing, and the former chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, among others of similar status. They argue that the only sensible, practical way now to prevent this endlessly recurring financial and then real crisis in the health service is to have a dedicated source of tax revenue.
There have traditionally been two objections to such a proposal, one of which was public opinion—the public do not like higher taxes—but the survey evidence from a big Sky poll some months ago suggested that if people were absolutely confident that the money would be allocated to the health service, about 70% of them would support such an income tax increase; other polls have suggested the same.
The second objection was a traditional Treasury one, which was that such an approach makes public spending and taxation more difficult to manage. I would cite as a counter to that the recent comments of the former head of the Treasury, Lord Macpherson, who presided over it in the five years when I was in the coalition Government. He is a massively impressive man. I confess that we did not always agree—he tended to regard public spending as some kind of disease—but none the less, he is a very authoritative source, and he appears to have been converted to the idea that such a measure is the only way in which the NHS can be put on a properly sustainable footing.
Looking ahead to the next financial year, which is what we are asking the Government to do, the question is: how are we going to avoid the kind of problems we have had this year? The first way is by the Government simply muddling through on their current spending assumptions, and probably in the next Budget, in the autumn, the Chancellor will come up with another rabbit out of the hat, which will be inadequate and too late.
The other alternative is to hope that there is some kind of advance payment of the “Brexit dividend”. I think that we are all familiar with these arguments about the £300 million a week that was supposed to come back—I think we have been promised £18 billion a year. We now know that this is almost entirely phoney and cannot be relied upon. Of course it was a gross, not a net, estimate, and we now know that we are going to pay out at least £40 billion. There will be continued annual payments through the transition period and possibly additional ad hoc payments on top of that.
Even on a fairly charitable view, we would be talking about five to six years before there is any dividend, and even that depends on a continued constant rate of growth. If growth slows down, as it almost certainly will post Brexit, this dividend may never appear. So if we cannot rely on a Brexit dividend and we are going to get past ad hoc financing, some new mechanism needs to be found, and the purpose of our new clause is to open up that discussion. I do not propose to press the new clause to a Division, but I am interested to hear how the Treasury currently regards earmarked taxation and whether its thinking has advanced in any way.
Finally, I wish to say a few words in support of the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, one of whose constituents has raised a substantial point about an HMRC proposal in the Bill that relates to dormant companies and their pension funds. The proposal is that such schemes should be de-registered when the companies have become dormant. The reasoning behind it is perfectly sensible: some such funds have been used for scams, to the cost of the public and HMRC, so HMRC proposes to de-register them when such things happen.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland’s constituent has pointed out some unintended consequences of this apparently sensible proposal, one of which is that there are quite a lot of cases in which the pension funds of dormant companies have been taken over by other companies. There are other cases in which a sponsoring company may be dormant but the trustees have kept it going on a pay-in basis, and it is perfectly sustainable.
The other aspect of the proposal that potentially causes a problem is that de-registration could happen after a closure of one month. A good recent example would be Monarch airlines. As we all know, it takes a lot more than a month to wind up a pension scheme, so it is a bit pre-emptory. I do recognise, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland’s constituent, that the power for HMRC would be discretionary. The Minister may say that we should trust HMRC always to get these things right, but it may be more sensible, as amendments 13 and 14 suggest, to have a carve-out to deal with cases that clearly do not fall within its remit.
The purpose of the amendments is to suggest that the de-registration activities should be restricted to the most recent six years, because that is when the scams have occurred and we do not need to go back into history. There should be a specific carve-out for cases in which there may well have been a pension fund succession. The provision would be that there should be at least one dormant employer and that a two-year period should be allowed for pension funds that have been maintained for a substantial time and are therefore clearly viable. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland would pretend that those are necessarily the perfect solutions to the problem, but I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is an issue and get the Treasury to reflect on it and perhaps come up with a superior solution.
Mel Stride
Given the limited time remaining, I intend to focus most of my remarks on the amendments and new clauses that have been spoken to in this debate.
I shall begin with new clauses 7 and 8, which seek reviews of the operation of the SDLT exemption for first-time buyers. As we know, housing is one of the great challenges of our age. We all recognise—we certainly have done in this debate—the importance of the supply side, which is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, whom I am delighted to see on the Treasury Bench, made such important announcements about funding for more housing. We can now look at hitting 300,000 new build homes in the next decade. The point was made that the OBR suggested that prices may increase by 0.3% as a result of our SDLT measure, but that observation is based on that measure alone and does not take into account the supply-side measures we are introducing.
Amendments 10, 11 and 12 relate to taxis and the vehicle excise duty supplement.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I wonder whether I might make a suggestion on the amendments to which my right hon. Friend just referred. Cabbies in my constituency have raised legitimate concerns about vehicle excise duty. If I have read them correctly, it seems that the amendments that have been tabled to clause 44 would make all taxis exempt from certain vehicle excise duty rates this year, rather than just the new, electric-capable vehicles. As my right hon. Friend knows from our discussions about taxis, I and other London Conservative MPs have serious concerns about air quality in the capital, so I would appreciate his view on whether it would instead be better if we brought forward by a year—
Mark Pawsey
On behalf of 1,000 skilled workers at the London Electric Vehicle plant in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend look very carefully at the proposals to bring forward the exemption on electric vehicles?
Mel Stride
If we look at bringing forward this exemption, the important thing is that we should look solely at that element that relates to low-emission vehicles, rather than applying it to all taxis, as indeed amendments 10, 11 and 12 do, as tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). However, having listened to the representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and indeed from the hon. Gentleman who has tabled the amendments, we are minded to look sympathetically at bringing forward the exemption by a year for those taxis that have low emissions, albeit that they cost £40,000 or more. I know that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will shortly be meeting representatives from the London Taxi Company and that he will be furthering those discussions with them.
In the one minute remaining, perhaps I could turn to new clause 10, which calls for a review of the consequences of not backdating the refund of VAT in respect of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The Chancellor made it clear in the Budget that, after lobbying from our Conservative colleagues in particular, we would allow such refunds going forward. In 2012, when the Scottish Government entered into those arrangements, they did so knowing what the VAT consequences would be, but we are taking action going forward.
Finally, I understand the desire of the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) to have information on the effects of increases of income tax by 1%. However, there is no need for that now, as information is available on that. Time does not allow me to explain what that is, but I will speak to him after this debate, and on that basis, I hope that he will not press his amendment. I also take on board his comments about dormant companies and pension fund arrangements, but we do have to look to HMRC to make those judgments so that we ensure that these scams are prevented.
Anneliese Dodds
We have no time left, so I will press new clause 7 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mel Stride
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill makes a number of vital changes to our tax system, helping people to buy their first homes, working towards improving productivity in our country, and making our tax system fairer and more sustainable. This Government believe in
“a nation-wide property-owning democracy.”
That conviction is as strong now as it was when Anthony Eden first said those words in 1946, but it is obvious to all of us in the House that the ideal has been eroded, and that the next generation of potential homeowners are being shut out. In London, prices are nearly 13 times the average wage, and in the rest of England they are eight times the average wage. Home ownership has decreased by 20 percentage points among young people in just the last 15 years. This Government know that the most sustainable way to improve affordability is by increasing supply. That is why at the autumn Budget we took steps to address this. We announced the Letwin review to look at why planning permissions are not turning into homes, and we increased Government funding for new housing to £44 billion over the next five years.
But there are also things we can do in the short term to help young people in particular to get a foot on to the ladder, so this Bill provides for a stamp duty cut for first-time buyers. First-time buyers tend to be more cash-constrained than others, with stamp duty representing a key financial obstacle, on top of a deposit and conveyancing fees for purchases over £125,000. This Bill will help more people to negotiate these challenges and exempts first-time buyers from stamp duty for houses worth up to £300,000, and it provides discounts for houses worth up to £500,000. This will save homebuyers up to £5,000 and will mean 80% of first-time buyers will not pay any stamp duty.
This Government have presided over 20 successive quarters of economic growth, record levels of employment and a significant decrease in the Budget deficit, as well as among the lowest levels of unemployment in over 40 years. This has been achieved only because of fair and sustainable fiscal and economic policy, but Britain’s productivity growth is subdued and has been since 2008, and I hardly need to tell the House why this should concern us, for productivity is intimately linked to real incomes and to living standards. That is why in this Bill we are increasing the research and development expenditure credit from 11% to 12%, thereby increasing incentives to businesses to invest in R&D. We also need to encourage our entrepreneurs and help their bright ideas to become productive business, but, as Sir Damon Buffini pointed out in the “Patient Capital Review”, it is often those companies at the forefront of technological and knowledge-based development with the most productive potential that struggle for necessary capital. In this Bill we are therefore increasing the lifetime investment limit for knowledge-intensive companies through our venture capital schemes from £5 million to £10 million, and we are doubling the yearly amount an investor can put into these schemes to £2 million, provided that everything over £1 million is invested in knowledge-intensive businesses. Building an economy fit for the future relies on our harnessing technology, new ideas, and the expertise we already have; these changes will help to make that happen.
The Government will continue to work relentlessly to make our tax system fairer and more sustainable, and this Bill continues the Government’s work on tax avoidance and evasion, making sure that people pay their fair share. Since 2010 the Government have introduced over 100 avoidance and evasion measures, which have helped to secure and protect over £175 billion of additional tax revenues to go towards our vital public services. But the work is not done, and this Bill furthers that agenda, cracking down on online VAT evasion, making online marketplaces joint and severally liable for the unpaid VAT of their sellers, and preventing companies from claiming unfair tax relief on their intellectual property. Taken together, the measures in the Bill to tackle avoidance and evasion raise further vital funds for our public services.
I thank Members for the quality of the debate during the passage of this Bill, and I thank in particular the Bill Committee and those on the Opposition Front Benches, both Labour and Scottish National parties, for their professional scrutiny and the fair and effective way in which they conducted themselves.
This Bill is one of which this Government can be proud. It gives first-time buyers renewed hope of a place on the housing ladder, puts measures in place to boost productivity, and takes another step along the path towards an equitable and sustainable tax system. I commend the Bill to the House.
EVEL Analysis
Mel Stride Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I have today published a written submission outlining the Government’s analysis of how the English votes for English laws principle relates to all Government amendments tabled for Report stage of the Finance (No.2) Bill.
The Department’s assessment is that the amendments do not change the territorial application of the Bill. The analysis holds if all the Government amendments be accepted.
I have deposited a copy of the submission in the Library of the House.
[HCWS470]
Treasury
Mel Stride Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford East for her contribution and for welcoming the measures, albeit that she did caveat her remarks fairly heavily. She asserted that the Government are not doing enough, but bringing forward the change to the revaluation approach by two years is a £2.3 billion move. [Official Report, 29 January 2018, First Delegated Legislation Committee, c. 6.]
Letter of correction from Mel Stride:
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct wording should have been:
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford East for her contribution and for welcoming the measures, albeit that she did caveat her remarks fairly heavily. She asserted that the Government are not doing enough, but bringing forward the change to the indexation approach by two years is a £2.3 billion move.
Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun Freezing Order 2018
Mel Stride Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun Freezing Order 2018 (S.I. 2018, No. 60).
Good morning, Sir Edward. May I say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your—I think it is fair to say—popular chairmanship?
The order was laid before the House this year on 19 January and came into force on 22 January. That was to ensure that there was no gap in the freezing measures enforced against Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun in response to the Litvinenko inquiry report published in January 2016.
The independent inquiry chaired by Sir Robert Owen concluded that Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned in 2006 by Lugovoy and Kovtun through the use of polonium-210. The inquiry also concluded that there was a “strong probability” that Litvinenko, an ex-KGB and ex-FSB officer and critic of the Russian Government, was murdered on the order of the FSB, the Russian domestic security service. Furthermore, the killing was “probably approved” by the then head of the FSB, Nikolai Patrushev, and the Russian President, Vladimir Putin.
In response to the gravity of those findings, in January 2016 the Treasury imposed an asset freeze on Lugovoy and Kovtun by making a freezing order under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The 2016 freezing order had the effect of freezing any funds or assets that those two individuals held in the United Kingdom or with any UK-incorporated entities, denying them access to the UK financial system and prohibiting UK persons from making funds available to them.
Under section 8 of the Act, the duration of a freezing order is limited to two years. During those two years, the Treasury is required by section 7 of the Act to keep the order under review. In order to maintain the asset freeze, the Treasury was required to review the case and decide whether to make a new order. The Treasury has conducted such a review and decided to make a new freezing order.
The Treasury believes that making a new order remains an appropriate and proportionate measure to take. The relevant conditions, as set out at section 4 of the Act, are still being met: the Treasury reasonably believes that action constituting a threat to the life or property of one or more nationals of the United Kingdom or residents of the United Kingdom has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons resident in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
The freezing order is consequently one of a limited number of measures available to the UK authorities to act directly against Lugovoy and Kovtun. The Russian authorities failed to co-operate at any stage with extradition requests or with the inquiry, which prevented progress on the Metropolitan police investigation into Lugovoy and Kovtun. There is little prospect of bringing them to trial in a British court.
We continue to believe that the freezing order acts as a deterrent, and as a signal that the Government will not tolerate such acts on British soil and that it will take firm steps to defend our national security and the rule of law. Were we not to renew the asset freezes against Lugovoy and Kovtun, we would risk sending a damaging signal that the consequences of murder in the United Kingdom are limited and time-bound if someone chooses to evade the UK justice system by remaining overseas.
Our relationship with Russia remains strictly limited because of the Litvinenko assassination and the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. We engage with Russia on a guarded basis, defending UK national security where necessary while ensuring that we address the global security issues of the day. We will continue to demand that the Russian Government do more to co-operate with the investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s death. That includes the extradition of the main suspects, the provision of satisfactory answers and our demand that Russia must account for the role and activities of its security services.
I urge the Committee to approve the order.
Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2018
Draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2018
Mel Stride Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2018.
Mel Stride
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
Let me begin by addressing the draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations. The Government are committed to a welfare system that is fair to the taxpayer while maintaining our protection for the most vulnerable in society. As in previous years, we are legislating to ensure that the guardian’s allowance and the disability elements of child tax credit and working tax credit increase in line with the consumer prices index, which stood at 3% in the year to September 2017. The draft regulations will maintain the level of support for disabled children in receipt of child tax credit, disabled workers in receipt of working tax credit and children whose parents are absent or deceased. Increases to these rates are part of the Government’s wider commitment to supporting the most vulnerable in our society.
The draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations will make changes to the rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions and make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the national insurance fund if required. These changes will take effect on 6 April 2018. Re-rating will increase the national insurance contribution rates, limits and thresholds in line with inflation to protect taxpayers from rising prices. Before I deal with the substance of the draft regulations, I draw the Committee’s attention to their fiscal significance: they will enable the collection of £130 billion in national insurance contributions, which will work directly to support our national health service, pensioners and people who have been bereaved.
Let me outline the changes to employee and employer NICs, commonly referred to as class 1 NICs. The lower earnings limit of £6,000 for class 1 NICs—the level of earnings at which employees start to gain access to contributory benefits, including the state pension, employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance—will rise in line with inflation to £116 a week. Employees will have to pay class 1 NICs at 12%. The primary threshold of £8,424—the level of earnings at which class 1 NICs have to be paid—will rise with inflation to £162 a week. The upper earnings limit is the level at which employees start to pay class 1 NICs at 2% on all earnings above a certain income tax threshold; the Government have committed to aligning this threshold with the UK’s higher income tax rate of £46,350. Employers have to pay national insurance at a rate of 13.8% above an earnings level called a secondary threshold. This threshold will rise with inflation to £162 a week, as it has been aligned with the primary threshold for employees since April 2017.
The Government are committed to reducing the cost to businesses of employing young apprentices and young people. The level at which employers of people under 21 and of apprentices under 25 start to pay employers’ contributions will rise from £866 to £892 a week.
The self-employed pay class 2, 3 and 4 NICs. Class 2 NICs provide access to contributory benefits for the self-employed, such as the state pension. The weekly rate of class 2 NICs to be paid will rise in line with inflation to £2.95, a flat rate for all the self-employed. The small profits threshold—the level of profits at which the self-employed have to pay class 2 NICs—will rise with inflation to £6,205 a year. The self-employed currently pay class 4 NICs at a rate of 9% on profits above £8,044 a year; that limit will now rise with inflation to £8,424. They also pay 2% above what is known as an upper profits limit; that limit will rise from £45,000 to £46,350 a year. The rate for class 3 contributions, which allow people to voluntarily top up their national insurance record, allowing access to contributory benefits, will increase in line with inflation from £14.25 to £14.65 a week.
The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 5% of forecast annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the national insurance fund, if needed, during 2018-19. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
I trust that that is a useful overview of the changes that we are making to bring rates of support and contributions to the Exchequer into line with inflation.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her observations, and especially for her broad support for the measures that we are bringing forward today.
On the issue of the thresholds and the potential benefit to higher earners as a consequence of upratings in the future, of course at this stage we are not at the £50,000 limit, so that is not a debate for today. A second point I want to make, on the issue of looking after the most vulnerable, is that we are doing a number of things from a Treasury perspective outside the benefits system, which were announced at the Budget, including a national living wage increase of 4.4%. That is well above inflation, something that the hon. Lady understandably referred to. That will begin in April. Of course, the increase in the personal allowance will take even more people out of tax, as well as providing a tax break for more than 30 million people.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The saving from the social security benefits freeze was estimated to be £3.5 billion, but because of increased inflation it is now estimated, according to the Library figures that we have obtained, to be £5.2 billion. Does the Minister think that the Government need to continue the benefit freeze under those terms?
Mel Stride
When looking at the impact of inflation on potential savings such as the hon. Gentleman describes, we have to bear in mind that many costs are going up for the Government as a consequence of increased levels of inflation. It is not simply something that can be looked at in isolation.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. Is he aware that analysis by groups such as the Women’s Budget Group has shown that any benefits, particularly for the worst-off families, that might have come through the increase in the personal allowance and the national living wage are cancelled out by the social security changes? When those changes are taken into account, people’s incomes have been falling. Furthermore, the very worst-off families often do not benefit from the changes, because they are simply unable to accrue enough hours to reach the threshold in the first place.
Mel Stride
As I have been explaining, the national living wage increases and the rise in the personal allowance are clearly elements of this. We are also now rolling out universal credit, which will increasingly make sure that work pays. We believe that that is the best way out of poverty and the best way to improve living standards. To make some broader points, as a responsible Government we need to balance the costs of benefits with the compelling need to look after and support the most vulnerable in our society. I argue that that is why today’s measures effectively exempt from the freeze the categories of individuals whom we are discussing today, who are indeed among the most vulnerable in our society.
Between 2008 and 2015, jobseeker’s allowance rose by about 21%, child tax credits by about 33%, but earnings by only about 12%. The total spend on benefits in 1980-81 was £30 billion in real terms. By 2014-15, that had risen to £96 billion. We have to place this debate within the context of that overall fiscal framework.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very happy to talk about how the overall balance of benefits has changed over time. The most significant difference between the 1980s and now, when we look at the overall balance of social security, is the gigantic increase in housing benefit that has occurred over the period, particularly over the last seven years. We have seen a radical increase in the cost of housing, which has left many families struggling when their wages have not been increasing. That is the major difference.
If we were to look at a pie chart of social security in those two periods, housing benefit has driven most of the change—certainly not increases in support for unemployed people, where the amount of support that people get in relation to wages has fallen precipitously. It has fallen more in the UK than in most comparable countries. I am very pleased to put the debate in that context; it is important that we do so, and remind ourselves that changes in the overall burden of social security payments have often been the result of a failure to deal with structural problems, such as the arguably overheated housing market that we have at the moment.
The Minister mentioned increases in different tax credits and JSA. I do not believe that they have been above inflation. Certainly, unemployment support has gone down substantially. The element of JSA that is linked to contribution-based national insurance has substantially decreased over time. It is simply not the case that we are moving towards a more contributory system. Most analysts would suggest that we have actually had a residualisation over recent years.
The Chair
Order. Interventions should be short. I think that was about three interventions.
Mel Stride
Thank you, Sir David. We might be in danger of discussing matters that diverge quite far from the instruments themselves. To deal with the point raised by the hon. Lady, one of the most telling statistics in all of this is that in 2013—the latest year for which these figures were available—this country had the largest percentage of GDP spend on family benefits, including child benefits, of any country in the OECD. In the context of the economic challenges that we face, we need to be fiscally prudent at the same time as growing our economy, as we are. As the hon. Lady will know, we are near record levels of employment. We have the lowest level of unemployment for over 40 years, we have reduced the deficit now by three-quarters, and we go into the coming period after the Budget on the back of 19 consecutive months of growth. So there are many things that are driving up in the direction of improving living standards.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Minister will also be aware that our record on helping the vulnerable is something to be proud of. The Minister has talked about reducing income inequality but we must also remember that many foundations—including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—suggest that we have reduced relative poverty as well. There is always more to be done, but together with very low unemployment we can be proud of the fact that we have helped the vulnerable in society, whilst accepting that there is still more to be done.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and he will know that prior to the very recent figures, which still show that the level of income inequality is the lowest since 2010, it was the lowest in 30 years.
Mel Stride
I know that the hon. Lady is itching to tell me about it excluding housing and raise various points, but it is a recognised measure within the Gini coefficient. I do believe that this Government have a record of which they can be truly proud. There is more to be done, but I think we can all agree on these measures, to the extent that they are relieving measures for particular categories of individuals whom we all, on both sides of the Committee, seek to support. I hope that on that basis we can approve these measures.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT TAX CREDITS AND GUARDIAN’S ALLOWANCE UP-RATING ETC. REGULATIONS 2018
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2018.—(Mel Stride.)
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Mel Stride Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 25, page 17, line 2, leave out “1998” and insert “2018”.
This amendment seeks to provide that the powers of disclosure cannot be exercised in breach of the updated data protection framework to be enshrined in the Data Protection Bill as enacted.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. Amendment 117 is a tidying-up amendment. The Scottish Law Commission raised the point that the relevant data protection legislation for the purposes of the Bill will be the Data Protection Act 2018, not the Data Protection Act 1998. The amendment would simply make a technical change to ensure that the correct legislation is used.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. Clause 25 permits disclosures for customs duty purposes, but makes it clear that disclosures that would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 are not permitted. Amendment 117 would provide instead that disclosures that would contravene the Data Protection Act 2018—currently the Data Protection Bill—were not permitted.
The Government intend that data protection safeguards will need to be complied with when powers under the Bill are exercised. Given that the Data Protection Bill is not yet in law, it would be inappropriate to refer to it in this Bill, but I am happy to assure the Committee that the Government are committed to ensuring appropriate data protection safeguards and will therefore seek to make the appropriate amendments at the appropriate time. In the meantime, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
If the Government amended the Bill to specify “appropriate data protection legislation”, rather than “the Data Protection Act 1998”, that would fix the problem and ensure that the correct legislation is used. I am sure that the Minister has listened, so I will not press the amendment to the vote, but I hope the Government will make reasonable changes on Report or at another stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 26 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 30
General provision for the purposes of import duty
Anneliese Dodds
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Buck, and a pleasure to see the rest of the Committee.
Our amendments would qualify the powers in clause 30 that enable the Treasury to make, by regulation, a wide range of provisions relating to the imposition of import duty. In particular, amendment 81 advocates the inclusion of a sunset clause, whereby no regulations can be made under clause 30 after the end of the two-year period, beginning with exit day, when the UK is set to leave the EU.
The Government suggested on Tuesday that the Opposition’s contributions had been on the theme of greater parliamentary accountability, for which I suspect many of our constituents would thank rather than criticise us. Today, one of our themes will be the use of sunset clauses where appropriate. I hope the Minister will listen to our arguments with an open mind.
It is not just the Opposition who have argued for the use of sunset clauses in the Bill and more generally. The House of Lords Committee that examined the subject also recommended their greater use. My hon. Friends will elaborate on that point later. I will point out the Government’s inconsistent approach to this Bill compared with the use of sunset clauses in other areas.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill commits to ensure that delegated powers in many of the areas it covers will not be available in perpetuity but only for the period necessitated by leaving the EU, and yet even that approach is not adopted here. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013—not necessarily an Act that I would otherwise support, because of its negative impact on health and safety regulation—appropriately suggested that sunset clauses could be a helpful mechanism to ensure that provisions are kept up to date. That commitment was placed into guidance on the conduct of impact assessments, which advocates that
“opportunities to use sunset clauses should be explored where appropriate.”
The use of sunset clauses was a core element of the better regulation agenda. In theory, the Government are still committed to that, although I was pleased to hear from the Prime Minister that she will remove some elements of it, such as the one in, two out rule.
There are many other historical parallels. Sunset clauses applied to legislation used during the first and second world wars, and to legislation dealing with a heightened terrorist threat. The lack of a time limit on some temporary legislation passed in the second world war exposed Governments to legal action in the late 1970s, when they tried to implement new control orders on the export of goods using the temporary legislation that had never been repealed.
I am not saying that sunset clauses are never abused. Arguably, in the US, President Bush sprayed them around routinely and inserted them into tax-cutting measures to try to hide the magnitude of revenue that the US Government would lose over time. However, they can play an important role when they are used appropriately, especially in trade and customs policy. The OECD’s policy framework for investment explicitly mentions the need to consider including sunset clauses in trade facilitation measures.
Antonios Kouroutakis published an interesting book a couple of years ago on sunset clauses. He shows that they have been used for centuries as a means of balancing the powers of the Executive with those of the legislature, especially when there is a need to develop parliamentary consensus and accelerate decision making when time is tight.
I am not sure about other Committee members, but I cannot imagine an epoch that fits those characteristics more fully than this one. The Government should aim to build trust across Parliament, not diminish it, and to achieve parliamentary consensus. I hope they will heed our call for a sunset clause in clause 30 and take it as the constructive suggestion that we intend it to be.
Mel Stride
Clause 30 allows the Treasury to make regulations for the purposes of import duty, which will prove necessary to ensure that the UK’s import duty regime operates effectively. As the Committee will be aware by now, the Bill contains several new powers to make regulations. As I have explained, although the Bill sets out the requirements for import duty, the need for more detailed rules will likely arise once the new regime is implemented. That is what the power in the clause allows for.
The clause permits regulations to be made to deal with administrative matters, the needs of which cannot be identified at this time because, for example, of unforeseeable changes in business practice. It is worth noting that the Union customs code, which establishes the current customs regime, provided powers to the Commission to make implementing and delegated Acts to supplement the rules set out in that code.
Amendment 81 seeks to limit the period in which the power to make regulations under clause 30 can be exercised to two years after exit day, as the hon. Lady outlined. The power will ensure that the UK can make the regulations necessary to deliver an effective import regime into the future. It allows the Treasury to respond as necessary to any future developments that might have a bearing on import duty.
The power will play an important part in ensuring we have the ability to address any circumstances that arise in the future that might require modification in the UK’s import duty regime, conceivably beyond the term of the period that the hon. Lady has suggested. It is for that reason that the power in the clause is not subject to a time limit. Amendment 81 seeks to impose just such a time limit of two years following exit day. If it were accepted, there would be a risk of limiting the Treasury’s capacity to make or require changes to the UK’s import duty regime in the future.
To pick up on a specific point raised by the hon. Lady about the Lords Committee and its assessments around sunsetting, it should be noted that the aims of this Bill are somewhat different from some of the other Brexit Bills that were referred to in that report. For example, while the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill makes provision for day one, with the understanding that further primary legislation will be made to supplement it, this Bill will be required in order to maintain a functioning customs regime and effective VAT and excise regimes on an ongoing basis. That is a key point. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments 131 and 132 seek to apply the draft affirmative procedure to regulations under clause 30. As I set out to the Committee previously, the Bill ensures that the scrutiny procedures that apply to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate, taking into account what could be covered by the regulations and the frequency and speed at which changes may need to be made. The Government believe that the negative procedure for regulations made under clause 30 provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government need to be able to administer the tax system effectively, for example to collect the right amount of tax from the right person at the right time. That clearly applies to the collection of real-time taxes such as import duties. Changes in circumstances, for example the emergence of a new category of goods or the proliferation of one means of importing goods, may need to be addressed in real time. Therefore, application of the draft affirmative procedure to regulations made under clause 30 is inappropriate. Unlike the negative procedure, the draft affirmative procedure will not be capable of implementing those essential policy changes immediately. Before the UK joined the EU, none of the provisions that could be made in secondary legislation in relation to import duty were subject to the draft affirmative procedure. For those reasons, the Government do not support the amendments.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. However, I wonder if I could probe a little further. First, will it be possible for the Government to legislate in order to extend some of the provisions if necessary? Is that a theoretical or actual possibility? It is my understanding that it would be both. Therefore, it is not clear to me why he does not accept the sunset clause.
Secondly, the Minister referred to the need to insure that the Government can respond to calls for frequency and speed in processing new measures. He appeared to imply that that need might go beyond two years after the Government’s planned exit day. I wonder how many years exactly he envisages that we might need the last-minute decision-making proposed in the Bill. Will it continue indefinitely? If that is the plan, it might concern many constituents.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady knows the answer to her theoretical question—whether in theory Parliament could, in the absence or with the existence of a sunset clause, none the less extend the provisions in the Bill—as well as I do. It is, of course, yes: Parliament can decide to do broadly that which it wishes to do in the legislative sphere.
How long we expect to rely on the provisions in the Bill and whether that will be beyond two years depends on a wide variety of circumstances, some of which will almost certainly necessarily be completely unknown at the current time. We do not actually know for certain whether there will be an implementation or transition period with the European Union and what the length of that would be, for example. That situation and the fact that, on an ongoing basis, we will need to make adjustments to regulations, potentially into the future, justify the measure.
The final point is that the clause and its powers do not amend primary legislation. They introduce new secondary legislation and the scope is restricted solely to those matters in relation to import duty. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Lady might consider withdrawing her amendment.
Anneliese Dodds
We are willing not to have a vote on the amendment, but we hope that the Government have listened to our concerns, particularly on the need to ensure that there is appropriate review. The intention behind much of the push for greater use of sunset measures is the concern that these provisions could be extended to cover other areas potentially not directly connected to the UK leaving the EU, as the Government have said they wish to do. I hope the Government continue to be mindful that there are concerns that the measure is part of a wider attempt to allocate more power to the Executive, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Peter Dowd
It is a pleasure as always to see you in the chair, Ms Buck. I want to speak to Opposition amendments 6 and 82, which seek to amend clause 31. Clause 31 in its current form gives Ministers the powers to create a customs union between the UK and another country, overseas territory or multilateral body, including, for example, the European Union.
There has been much debate in this Committee of the possibility of the UK forming a customs union with the European Union after we leave. It is stating a fact that when the UK leaves the European Union it will also leave the European customs union. However, we have been consistent in our belief that it would be wrong to take the option of the UK forming a customs union with the EU off the table at this early stage of UK negotiations. Therefore, we welcome the Government making specific provision for the option of a customs union in the Bill.
There are a variety of customs unions, and an internal customs union between the UK and its overseas territories and Crown dependencies is far different from a customs union with a single country or a multinational organisation such as the EU. It is a welcome sign that the Government have considered that and ensured that clause 31 is drafted in a way to fit the scenario.
Although the Opposition accept the principle of what the Government are attempting to do, we once again take issue with the concealed manner in which they plan to do it. Under the measures in clause 31, the formation of a customs union would be made through the declaration of an Order in Council, completely cutting out Parliament, in effect, as I understand it—the Minister may wish to clarify that.
We have heard from Ministers on a number of occasions that their action is related to delegated legislation, for example, and that it is always commensurate and proportionate. Setting up a customs union, of whatever construction, without commensurate and proportionate parliamentary involvement is not consistent with the approach that the Government have taken thus far in relation to that commensurate and proportionate principle. It is simply a matter of the Government changing the goalposts capriciously. I completely acknowledge that the Minister may put me right on that.
This appears a rather strange way for the Government to uphold the central theme espoused by those advocating leaving the European Union—of “taking back control.” It confirms one of the central objections that we have made time and time again, and stated throughout this Bill and others, concerning Executive overreach and the centralisation of power. That issue will not go away any time soon. Conservative Members also have concerns about that.
Opposition amendment 6 would instead require a Minister to make a statement to the House of Commons on the establishment of a customs union, outlining the specific details of the customs union and how they were reached, as well as the effects of the new customs arrangements on trade with other countries and territories. I consider that—I think that most people will—to be the minimum level of parliamentary oversight that we should expect, and one that would ensure the Government are accountable to this House.
Several customs unions exist in the world, including the EU customs union, Mercosur and the Caribbean Community. There are more in the pipeline, with negotiations on potential customs unions taking place in the middle east, parts of Africa and between New Zealand and Australia. Under amendment 6 the House will be able to give proper scrutiny to what kind of customs union the Government have in mind. Is that a detail that Parliament need not bother about? Our view is that it is an important fact.
If the Government intend to keep the option of forming a future customs union with the European Union on the table, as clause 31 makes possible, they must consider the variety of needs of UK businesses, manufacturers and stakeholders. Customs unions are ordinarily designed to address trade in goods. However, the new UK-EU relationship will also need to deliver trade in services, cross-border Government procurement and, possibly, regulatory equivalence, as well as a host of other issues that others may want to comment on. I have made that point previously.
The debate on the UK’s future trading relationship remains controversial. The Secretary of State continues to shroud the progress of future deals in a veil of secrecy, under issues to do with commercial sensitivity, except when, as today, we are told there will be £9 billion of trade with China. The Government pick and choose what to tell us. We have consistently opposed such a level of secrecy, and we believe that Parliament should have the right to give proper scrutiny to future trade agreements and customs arrangements.
Amendment 6 would therefore ensure an open process, and a level of transparency around the negotiation and establishment of a customs union; it would ensure that the negotiation and implementation would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment would also allow Members of the House, who bring diverse experience— a vast range of experience in many situations—and who represent a variety of key sectors and stakeholders, to debate an issue that is very important.
The Government would also be required under the amendment to consider the impact of the establishment of a customs union on trade with other territories and countries. That is an important factor, particularly given that, currently, the UK’s membership of the EU customs union means it is unable to enter into trade agreements outside the EU. Part of the issue is that we have seen what happens when Governments do not consider the impact of entering a customs union on trade with other countries.
We need only go back to the time when we first entered what was then the European Economic Community. We failed to take account of the impact on trade with Commonwealth countries, which then accounted for 20% of all imports and exports. The result was unhappy and damaging, with Commonwealth countries losing out. The Labour Prime Minister had to renegotiate better terms that ensured that trade with Commonwealth countries could continue. There is a history, and we need to make sure we get things right, as best we can. Parliament’s role is to tease those issues out, especially given the seriousness of this.
Amendment 6 is intended to prevent a scenario such as I have outlined by requiring Ministers to make clear to the House and other trading nations the possible impact of forming a customs union—internally or with another country or a multinational organisation—on trade.
Amendment 82 would limit the period for which a customs union agreed by the Government through delegated legislation could be in force. It would set the period at six years, after which the Government would have to introduce primary legislation if they wanted to extend the customs union. The amendment would be an important part of guaranteeing that Parliament, not the Executive, would have the final say in any customs union that was established. It would constrain and limit Ministers’ power and ensure that the long-term establishment of a customs union would receive the proper parliamentary scrutiny that such a move deserves.
Under clause 31, delegated powers could be used to bring the UK into a permanent customs union without a vote in the House of Commons. In that scenario, Members would not be able to assess the benefits of that customs union before the Government entered into it. There would also be no recourse to a reversal of the decision if it proved costly to the UK—other than through primary legislation, presumably, so let us do that first. Just as the Opposition have forced and required the Government to concede a vote to the House on the final deal reached in the negotiations between the UK and the European Union, amendment 82 would require the Government to put the formation of a future customs union to a vote.
There is of course a difference between a temporary customs union and a permanent one, and amendment 82 makes that distinction. While we accept that the Government may need the powers in clause 31 to put in place temporary measures as part of a transitional process, more permanent changes should receive proper parliamentary oversight and sanctions. We believe six years to be time enough for the House to consider the net benefits or costs of a customs union, be that an internal customs union with overseas territories and Crown dependencies, or a customs union with another country or a large, multinational organisation such as the EU. Six years would prove enough time for Members to assess whether that customs union protects UK manufacturers, supports UK businesses and works in the interest of the country.
As the Minister has stated many times, the Bill is a framework Bill. Clause 31 sets out framework powers that will give Ministers the ability to introduce regulations for the creation of a customs union. Our opposition to this matter is clear: while we welcome the Government including these powers in the Bill, as I said earlier, amendments 6 and 82 would guarantee that Parliament has the final say.
Mel Stride
Clause 31 caters for a situation in the future in which the UK has made an agreement with an overseas country or territory to enter into an arrangement to establish a customs union. The clause allows such a customs union to have effect for the purposes of import duty. It also allows HMRC to make regulations that might prove necessary to ensure that a customs union functions effectively.
As I previously set out, the Bill caters for a range of possible outcomes after the UK has left the EU. There are various circumstances in which the Government might wish to establish a customs union with a country or territory overseas, and to have that union apply for import duty purposes. One instance might be to establish a customs union with a Crown dependency—namely Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.
The clause caters for any international arrangements such as this that establishes a new customs union. The clause does not provide the power to enter into an international agreement; such an agreement does not require a specific statutory basis. Instead, it simply allows the UK’s customs regime to reflect such an agreement by providing the means necessary to implement it. Once an agreement has been reached, an Order in Council will be required before it can take effect for import duty. That order can itself be made—this is a critical response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bootle—only if it has first been approved, in draft, by the House of Commons under the draft affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure the Committee agrees that that will afford a high level of parliamentary scrutiny for each stage of the process.
It is likely that further provisions will be needed to make an international agreement effective for import duty purposes. The most obvious instance would be to ensure that import duty is not charged on the movement of goods between the UK and the overseas country or territory. For that reason, the clause allows HMRC to make any necessary changes in regulations.
Amendment 82 seeks to add a restriction to that process in two ways. First, it would limit the ability of HMRC to make regulations to five years from exit day. Secondly, it would make any Order in Council cease to have effect six years after exit day. Both of those positions are misguided. I am sure that I do not need to remind the Committee that establishing a new customs union with an overseas territory or country is likely to be a long-term process, not least because of the need to ensure that it reflects the UK’s new international trading relationship once we have left the European Union. It would therefore be wrong to limit the ability to adapt the UK’s legislation to a period of five years following exit.
More importantly, it would be rather perverse to make any customs union simply cease to have an effect on domestic law after a six-year period. As I explained, the level of parliamentary scrutiny that would apply to such a union is very high, requiring both an Order in Council and the draft affirmative procedure in Parliament, as well as all the potential debates and votes that may occur around the negotiations that led to that customs union arrangement in the first place.
There is therefore no case for time-limiting an agreement in the way proposed by the amendment. Indeed, it could make it far more difficult, if not impossible, to reach any agreement if our overseas partners were aware that such an agreement would no longer function effectively at a future point because of limitations on powers in our domestic legislation. I therefore urge the Committee to reject amendment 82.
Mel Stride
New clause 12 and its consequential amendments propose a process by which Parliament scrutinises and approves secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North referred to the process as the super-affirmative resolution procedure. I commend her on her creativity, but I must urge the Committee to reject what has been proposed.
As I understand the super-affirmative resolution procedure, it would initially require the laying in draft of any regulations, alongside an explanatory document and a declaration to which the new procedure would apply. It would also entail the appointment of a House of Commons Committee, which would initially have the power to recommend that more onerous procedures should apply to the draft regulations than those currently provided by the Bill. At the same time, those more onerous procedures would apply automatically to certain regulations, as set out in the amendments. The Committee would have the power to recommend that any draft regulations were rejected before they could be approved by the Commons under the affirmative procedure.
The powers of that Committee would be fairly wide, but at the same time, its remit would be relatively modest, only relating to the trade remedies provisions and regulations under clause 42 which deals with amendments regarding how EU law applies to VAT. I have already explained why it is entirely right that regulations for the trade remedies framework should be subject to the negative procedure. Clause 42, along with other provisions in the Bill, is necessary to ensure that the UK has a fully functioning VAT system once we leave the European Union. As there is limited direct EU legislation relating to VAT, the power in clause 42 is therefore equally limited. Given that limited scope, it is only right that its exercise should be subject to the negative procedure.
No case has been made that the existing and well-understood parliamentary procedures for making regulations are inadequate. To establish an entirely new procedure would mark a major precedent in Parliament and I cannot see any reason for doing so. That is particularly true in the case of limited regulation-making powers, which are the subject of the amendments.
Peter Dowd
Does the Minister not accept that this might be unprecedented, but so is leaving the European Union and all the institutions associated with it and all the mechanisms that go with it? That is unprecedented, so we need to have unprecedented parliamentary scrutiny of that unprecedented move.
Mel Stride
The word “unprecedented” could be applied to almost everything that happens in the future; it is always different to that which occurred in the past. I think it might be stretching Parliament’s patience if on every occasion we came across something unprecedented, we conjured up some unprecedented way of dealing with it. I really do not want to re-rehearse all my arguments on the relative merits, proportionality, appropriateness and so on of the various approaches that we take on those matters. To conclude, we believe that the various new parliamentary processes proposed would hamper the UK’s ability to respond swiftly to future developments and to provide an important but proportionate safety net to UK industry in a timely fashion.
Amendments 94 and 95 seek to retain the effect of direct EU legislation. Amendment 94 would do that by retaining EU regulations on VAT that will be brought into UK law as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. According to the explanatory statement accompanying the amendment, that is so the EU legislation in the area will continue to have effect during the implementation period. Amendment 95 seeks to limit the power to exclude certain provisions of the VAT-implementing regulations.
The Bill enables the Government to respond to a range of outcomes. By way of background, the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and subordinate legislation already implements the majority of EU law on VAT, including the VAT directive. The 1994 Act as amended by the Bill will continue to apply post-EU exit. Few EU regulations apply to VAT and in the main those relate to single market reciprocal arrangements such as exchange of information. In the absence of an agreement, those will simply have no application—we would not want them to be incorporated into UK law for obvious reasons—which is why they are disapplied by clause 42(1). Removal of EU legislation that is no longer required or otherwise deficient is anticipated in the withdrawal Bill.
At this stage I will deal with the specific point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about VAT, and how it operates now and might operate once we have left the European Union. She has raised issues that will certainly be very important—it is not the first time that she has raised such issues—to how businesses interact with what will then be the remaining EU27. I made it clear on Second Reading that we will look sympathetically and appropriately at the particular issue of the change from acquisition VAT to import VAT, including the change in timing of VAT payments with its effect on a large number of businesses as they trade with the European Union in future.
The note to amendment 94 refers to ensuring that EU legislation continues to have effect during an implementation period, but it may not be necessary to switch our provision on until after a transitional period or at all. Alternatively, EU regulations disapplied under clause 42(1) could be reinstated by the power in clause 51, which we will come to. What is ultimately required will depend on the outcome of the negotiations. However, we anticipate that the rules in an implementation period will be broadly reflective of the existing ones.
Amendments 89 and 90 seek to change the parliamentary process for some of the regulation-making powers provided in parts 1 and 3 of the Bill and their related schedules. For indirect taxation measures, it is common to have a framework in primary legislation supplemented by secondary legislation. The Bill establishes a comprehensive framework for a new standalone customs regime that will be underpinned by detailed and technical secondary legislation.
The trade remedies framework contains a great deal of such technical detail and the secondary legislation made under the Bill will comply with WTO rules, which is why we propose that the regulations are subject to the negative procedure. With that I ask Opposition Members to consider withdrawing their amendment, or at least the Committee to resist them.
Kirsty Blackman
I will begin by arguing slightly with the Minister and then I will go on to be a bit nicer to him—so it may start off badly, but it will get better.
The Minister said that the case had not been made for the operation of delegated legislation being inadequate. I believe that the case has been made that how delegated legislation in this House operates is inadequate, in particular by the gentleman from the Hansard Society who gave evidence in Committee. He was pretty scathing about the negative procedure in particular, but also about the other delegated legislation methods. Most of us around the House see the shortcomings in how delegated legislation operates, especially given the lack of scrutiny and amendability, whether by the Opposition or Back-Bench Government Members. There are major shortcomings in how delegated legislation works. I think that few people outwith Government would say that it is all working fine, because the Government have an interest in ensuring that measures have little scrutiny.
On the movement from acquisition VAT to import VAT, I appreciate that the Minister will consider it sympathetically. I am not sure whether HMRC would make any sympathetic changes as part of a public notice process or in some other way, or whether legislation would be needed to include VAT deferral methods or something similar. Whatever it is, it would be useful for it to happen sooner rather than later, and for the Government also to set out their intentions for how any scheme would work sooner rather than later, so business can have a level of certainty.
I was pleased by what the Minister said about increasing head count in HMRC to ensure that customs will work more smoothly. That is welcome, but the information that we have had thus far about the resourcing of HMRC has not been particularly in-depth; it has just been that head count will increase. There is no clarity about how those people will be deployed or what level of support businesses will receive from HMRC, for example, when they make both the change in relation to VAT and any customs changes that they need to make.
We expect that 132,000 firms will be caught by VAT on imports for the first time. That is a significant number of firms currently wondering how it is going to work. The sooner they can have that information, the better. We do not want negative impacts on our economy, although it is just the case that Brexit will have negative impacts on our economy, because the single market is better for our economy than any possible trade deal, even if it includes services. Although our preferred position is to remain in the EU and second best would be remaining in the single market and the customs union, whatever we can do to mitigate the impacts on businesses and on people who live in our constituencies—in towns, cities and rural areas—we will push the Government to do. We are trying to mitigate the worst possible excesses of the most extreme Brexit. We are driving off a cliff with a huge amount of spikes at the bottom. We are just trying to have fewer spikes at the bottom of the cliff. That is what we are asking for, particularly in relation to VAT.
I would like to return to these amendments and to new clause 12 on Report, so I do not intend to press them to a vote at this point, but I appreciate the Minister’s time and attention, as well as his comments.
Mel Stride
That was a thoughtful contribution, and I would like to respond to one or two of the points raised by the hon. Lady.
First, on delegated legislation, I am aware that there is a difference of opinion between the sides of this Committee generally about how rigorous oversight is relative to the measures to which the powers relate. The hon. Lady prayed in aid the Hansard Society’s evidence during the witness session, and I think that I am right in saying that the Hansard Society representatives stated that there was no circumstance in which the enhanced level of scrutiny proposed by Her Majesty’s Opposition throughout the various debates that we have had—that is not quite what the hon. Lady is putting forward—would appropriately apply to measures in the Bill, so I am not sure that this heavy version of scrutiny would necessarily be supported by the Hansard Society, although it would be interesting to know.
Secondly, I would like to address the point about Government not having an interest in scrutiny. We most certainly do, because it makes for better law. Even from a narrow perspective, there is always a Government interest in ensuring that there are no problems further down the line and that we do not need to revisit legislation to deal with the dissatisfaction of Parliament or, indeed, of Members of Parliament from our own party.
Mel Stride
New clause 14 and amendments 121 to 125 seek to add further parliamentary scrutiny of the way that certain powers in the Bill to make secondary legislation can be exercised. The Bill allows the powers in question to be exercised under the made affirmative procedure; the amendments would change that in certain circumstances to the draft affirmative procedure.
The Committee is aware that the Bill contains a range of powers to make regulations on a number of different aspects of VAT, customs and the excise regime, which will come into effect after the UK leaves the EU. New clause 14 is concentrated on a small subset of these powers, namely those that apply with respect to setting or increasing tariff rates, charging export and excise duty, some of the general rules for excise duty, and provisions under clauses 51 and 54, to the extent that they amend or repeal primary legislation. All those powers are subject to the made affirmative procedure.
In each case, the amendment would require a Minister who wished to exercise a power using the made affirmative procedure to make, on each occasion, a declaration that such a procedure is warranted, either for reasons of urgency, revenue protection or security continuity in the administration of the tax system. When a Minister does not make such a declaration, the regulation in question would default to the draft affirmative procedure.
I fully understand concerns about the inappropriate use of parliamentary procedures, but there is a compelling case for using the made affirmative procedure for the powers referred to in the amendments. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Bill is primarily concerned with the charging of tax and duty. Usual procedure when giving effect to changes in tax policy is the made affirmative procedure—that is a very important point in the context of the other examples I appreciate the hon. Lady making in this regard. The reasons for that are that any changes need to come into effect quickly—in some cases immediately. The made affirmative procedure is the standard mechanism for achieving that aim.
It is generally accepted that change in tax policy—such as when the Government change a rate of tax—should come into effect immediately. The use of the made affirmative procedure allows the Government to give effect to such changes immediately, in order to avoid a gap in UK legislation. The same principle will apply for matters covered by the Bill. At some point in the future, the Government might wish to amend the customs tariff quickly to reflect a change in international trade. That is vital for tax matters, and the reason why the made affirmative procedure is the norm for tax legislation. Because tax entails financial consequences for both taxpayers and the Exchequer, clarity and certainty are essential.
Although the intention of the amendments may be to improve parliamentary scrutiny, if they were adopted, they would create uncertainty for businesses, and that uncertainty would be in nobody’s interest. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press new clause 14 and amendments 121 to 125. If not, I urge the Committee to resist them.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I question, however, whether the circumstances he just described as appropriate for the use of the made affirmative procedure do not fall precisely within the circumstances we ask the Government to demonstrate are in place within the declaration we are asking for. We say that it is possible for the made affirmative procedure to be used, provided the Government make clear that these measures are necessary for the protection of the public revenue or continuity in the administration of the tax system. Those are exactly the kinds of circumstances that the Minister has referred to, so it is not clear to us why he would not accept our amendment. We are saying that we do accept the use of the procedure in such circumstances as he just described: it is when things go beyond them into other areas that we are not satisfied with the use of the procedure.
Mel Stride
I understand the hon. Lady’s argument, but the matter comes down ultimately to the relevant level of scrutiny. The argument is strong that the circumstances that we are discussing, of a quick response and the ability immediately to set the tariff or change duties—things of that kind—lend themselves to the approach in question. If the central argument is about scrutiny, the question is whether the made affirmative procedure provides sufficient scrutiny. I maintain that it does. It requires in-depth scrutiny by the House, which would be subject to a Division if there were differences of opinion on the matter in hand.
Perhaps I may briefly pray in aid Joel Blackwell, the witness from the Hansard Society, who is getting a lengthy outing in our discussions today. I take on board the Opposition points about its being important, from his perspective, to maintain impartiality in the deliberations of the Hansard Society; we all respect it, which is why we were pleased to have him in particular as a witness. However, he did state that
“the Brexit Bills are going to have to be framework Bills—based on the fact that the legislation for Brexit is going to need some speed and flexibility”—[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 47, Q63.]
That is at the heart of our arguments that we are putting on these matters in general.
Anneliese Dodds
I shall not return to what the witness did or did not say. I think there may be a difference of opinion there. I am afraid I do not agree with the Minister’s description of the made affirmative procedure. In practice, of course, that procedure means that measures are in place from the moment they are laid, so they are immediately enacted. There need be no effective scrutiny by way of discussion by the House or other bodies, to allow them to stay in place over time. We are talking about a mechanism very different from what would usually be applied.
I shall not push the point. I appreciate the Minister’s comments. I just hope that the Government will heed our call for them to restrict the use of the measure to exactly the kinds of areas that the Minister just described—only those where the procedure is necessary to protect public revenue, or for continuity in the administration of the tax system. If its use goes beyond that, we fear we shall be in tricky waters. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to support the amendments. I said in a previous sitting—one is encouraged to repeat oneself here—that one of the first things I said when I saw the clause was, “What constitutes a public notice? What does that even mean?” I am no more happy about it now that I have found out what the definition is. I am concerned that there are no rules about how such notices need to be shared. The Government probably need to look at putting into all laws that come forward what constitutes a public notice and what constitutes the public having enough notice of something.
With regard to this clause, it would be sensible for HMRC, whatever changes it makes, to ensure that everyone knows what those changes are and that all affected people are aware of them. Otherwise, we will have a situation where HMRC chases people for doing the wrong thing when they did not know they were doing the wrong thing, because the change was tweeted on the Prime Minister’s Twitter feed rather than put out in an accessible format. I do not imagine that the Government would be daft enough to put a public notice in a place where no one would see it, but it would be useful to have clearer rules about public notices. I therefore support what my honourable colleagues on the Labour Front Bench seek to do with the amendments.
Mel Stride
Amendment 140 seeks to limit the powers in the Bill to use public notices. However, a notable effect of the amendment would be to remove the ability to use regulations to cover matters that are dealt with in a public notice, which may limit the Government’s ability to package delegated legislation in the most effective way.
The circumstances in which provision can be made by public notice are well defined in the Bill. There is no power in the Bill to allow for provision that may be made by regulations to be made alternatively by public notice. I reassure the Committee that it is not unusual for public notices to be used to make provision in relation to the administration of tax regimes. They are typically used, for example, to make provision that is purely technical or administrative in nature; that may be subject to regular updating, including to take account of external factors; that may need to be changed swiftly; that is based on external sources; or that is not otherwise required to be set out in secondary legislation, but is included to improve transparency. An example in the Bill is the provision enabling the form and content of a customs declaration to be set out in a public notice.
Another effect of the amendment would be to disapply subsections (6) to (8) of clause 32 in respect of public notices, although they would continue to apply in respect of regulations. Let me reassure the Committee that those subsections do not widen the subject matter that public notices can be used to address. As I have stated, that subject matter is set out clearly by the relevant clauses and schedules. On that basis, I urge the Opposition to withdraw amendment 140.
Amendment 141 aims to require public notices published under the Bill to be made in a form that is accessible to
“all people who are likely to be affected by or interested in”
them. I sympathise with the amendment’s general thrust. It is, of course, vital that any public notice published by HMRC is made available in an accessible format to everyone affected. However, I assure the Committee that including such an obligation in the Bill is unnecessary. HMRC has extensive experience of producing public notices to communicate changes in tax policy to affected parties, whether individuals or businesses, as part of its wider engagement with bodies that represent customers. That includes ensuring that any information set out in a public notice is clear and accessible. Indeed, the Government already make everything we publish on gov.uk accessible and available in a variety of formats. The public notices published under the Bill will be no different.
HMRC also has good working relationships with a range of business representative groups and uses those channels to reach the wider business community. For example, it is normal practice to share advance drafts with business groups to seek their views. HMRC will continue to follow the same approach with its public notices on the changes introduced by the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.
Jonathan Reynolds
I have listened intently to the Minister’s reassurance, particularly about the modesty of public notices and the undesirability of making more specific recommendations about their accessibility. I also listened to his point that public notices cannot replace regulation. However, the Bill states that regulations can replace public notices, which suggests that the burden of what is being considered is wider than the Government have declared.
Even in my relatively short time as a shadow Treasury Minister, I have seen relatively arcane bits of our regulatory constitutional apparatus used on several occasions, for instance to limit the scope of debate on amendments to a Finance Bill. Once powers are in place, they can be used for ends for which they were not intended when they were put on the statute book.
I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I think that we may have to return to the issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)