Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Second sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There are many reasons why clarity about the limitations of Government responsibility and taxpayer responsibility, to put it another way, would be extremely helpful. The very fact of producing the Bill will mean that the Government have asked those questions anyway. As I said earlier, the cost in this case is expected to be about £120 million. The costs of clause 2, which we will come to later, are expected to be over £300 million. Over both clauses the cost will therefore be more than £400 million. That is a large sum of public money that will, in the case of clause 2, be recouped over a period of years from pension scheme members.

Of course, it is possible to have investment failings on an even greater scale. Is there any upper limit that the Treasury would see to such taxpayer exposure, or is it always to be on a case-by-case basis? In theory, investment failings could cost billions rather than hundreds of millions. Our amendment seeks to clarify the Government’s thinking on that, which would be beneficial to Parliament and the public.

Those are the reasons why we have tabled this amendment. We think that the compensation scheme and the whole story of the collapse of LCF demands such clarity and that reports such as the one we have called for would be beneficial.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ghani.

I shall speak to amendment 7, in my name, and in support of the official Opposition’s amendment 1.

Both amendments call for the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament on issues that collectively raise many still unanswered questions about the Bill, about the compensation scheme, and about why the scandal of London Capital & Finance was allowed to happen.

By far the biggest criticism of the Bill, which we again heard from witnesses today, is that it has been deliberately framed so narrowly that those questions are in danger of being ignored. I know that the Government will argue that framing it narrowly increases its chances of getting on to the statute book—I accept that argument—but there is a downside to doing that.

The biggest question that is still unanswered is: why do we expect compensation for the victims of one investment mis-selling scandal when so many people have lost so much—possibly a total of more than £1 billion —in other company collapses that share most, and sometimes all, of the key features of London Capital & Finance?

I should make it clear that I am not asking for the setting up of other schemes. We are not asking for approval at this stage, or for other failures to be included in the LCF scheme. All we are asking for is some clear indication that the Government are taking action to look at the wider issues.

The Government’s answer is that London Capital & Finance was regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and that companies such as Blackmore Bond were not. That smacks of looking for an explanation to justify a decision that has been taken for a completely different reason.

Companies such as Blackmore Bond set out to make prospective investors believe that the FCA had a role in protecting their money. Investors in LCF were misled into believing that its own registration with the FCA would cover their investments. The only difference with other company failures is that investors in those companies were misled into believing that someone else’s registration would cover them—a fine point lost on investors themselves.

The Government’s explanation appear to assume that the only problem, or even the biggest problem, with London Capital & Finance was that it was a regulated company selling unregulated investments. That was certainly part of the problem, but, as the written submissions from a number of investors and as evidence this morning made clear, there were other failings and possibly deliberate malpractice within the company and some of its advisers. Other failings of regulation went well beyond those laid at the feet of the Financial Conduct Authority in relation purely to LCF. If the Government constantly remind us that the sale of mini-bonds was not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, surely the elephant in the room is: why on earth not?

The Government will, I know, refer to the principle of caveat emptor. It is correct that anyone making an investment has a responsibility to ensure that the investment meets their needs, but there are hundreds—possibly thousands—of examples in UK regulation where we regulate the market but it is not realistic or fair to expect the emptor to caveat.

We do not expect people to do their own personal survey of a house to make sure it is safe before they buy it. We do not expect people to check the brakes on the bus before buying a ticket. We have regulation to protect public safety, on food standards, on product safety and on a number of financial transactions. It is perfectly possible for the Government to start to look at regulating these investments in future and compensating ordinary men, women and sometimes children who have lost sums that, individually, are not significant to the FCA but are massively significant to their plans for retirement, for paying to support their children at university or for ever.

We must make it clear that we are not asking the Government to approve compensation for every company failure. We are not asking them even to consider the implications of doing that. We are asking them to look specifically at cases where there is clear evidence of the mis-selling of investments, usually to people who the seller knew perfectly well were not suited to that investment. That has been a characteristic of all the cases we have looked at today.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am particularly drawn to proposed subsection 5(b) of amendment 7. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman shares my view that one measure the Government need to require of the FCA in the future, to prevent further such regulatory failures, is for it to take a more hands-on approach when customers get in contact to raise concerns about particular businesses; and to make it a point of principle that, when a significant number of customers raise concerns about the activities of a firm, the FCA might actually try to meet some of those customers, rather than, as appears to be the case at the moment, only bothering to meet representatives of the board and management of said firm.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. A lot of the issues he raises are covered in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report and recommendations. She even pointed out today that possibly the single biggest failing—certainly one of the biggest failings—was that the Financial Conduct Authority had too restrictive a view of its purpose in regulating the market.

I have to say that it is not only the Financial Conduct Authority that has failed to regulate. What was the registrar of companies at Companies House doing when they got a copy of the audited accounts of Blackmore Bond—the only copy that was ever submitted by that entire group—in which it said, in so many words, that in order to pay the guaranteed interest on money it had already received from investors, it had to keep on getting more and more new investors? It was effectively a Ponzi scheme in all but name. The auditors made similar comments on the accounts but did not seem to be under any obligation or duty to do anything else. Nobody at Companies House, or the registrar of companies, appears to have been under any responsibility to look at the documents submitted to spot the danger signs; nobody anywhere seems to have been responsible for that. Although the Financial Conduct Authority has been rightly and severely criticised for its failure to regulate London Capital & Finance, we are talking about a much wider failure of the regulatory regime. Maybe one of the biggest difficulties is that there are so many people who might be involved and they are quite happy to point fingers at one another, saying that they should be responsible.

I realise I am in danger of wandering off the narrow scope of the Bill. We cannot amend the Bill to set up a more comprehensive compensation scheme just now because of the way it is framed; we cannot even amend it to set up a framework so that the Secretary of State, through statutory instrument, could extend it in the future. However, we can ask the Secretary of State to explain to Parliament not only what the Government are doing to help the victims of this one scandal but what lessons they have learned and what they are doing to make sure these scandals cannot be repeated. I hope the words of the witnesses from the Transparency Task Force this morning are ringing in all our ears. They believe they have evidence that there are other scandals like LCF happening right now and that it is just a matter of time before they collapse and leave yet more investors out of pocket.

Finally, why is it that the Government need to be called to account and asked to explain to Parliament why it is that, while they are supporting the victims of LCF, they are doing nothing to help the thousands of other victims of other scandals that have already come home to roost? For those victims, improvement in regulation alone is far too late.

[Gareth Thomas]

I do not intend to detain the Committee long, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East made an excellent speech on this issue; I merely want to underline the point that I made in when intervening on him. There seems to be a degree of risk in the Government’s approach. Again, it would be good to hear from the Minister to better understand why the level of regulatory failure in this particular case should merit Government compensation, whereas if there were to be regulatory failure in, say, the case of the FCA’s handling of the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria, that would not merit compensation for the 1 million-plus customers and owners of that financial services business.

I also underline the point that I made when intervening on the hon. Member for Glenrothes, who speaks for the Scottish National party, on the need of the FCA to perhaps rethink its approach to consumers more generally. At least one of the regulators in the financial services business case that I have particularly been following—that of Liverpool Victoria—has met representatives of that organisation some 35-plus times but has not met consumers at all. That seems to be an example of the FCA continuing not to have properly thought through where it might need to change its practices going forward. I know the Minister will be looking at this issue, and I gently encourage him to focus particularly on that aspect of the regulatory failure.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East underlined the point in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report that there have been 600 phone calls from customers about LCF’s poor performance, yet that still did not seem to spur on the FCA to take action quickly. There are almost 10 times as many consumers who are members of Liverpool Victoria as those who invested in LCF, which surely further underlines the need to get right how the FCA handles the consumer interests going forward. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

[John Glen]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and I thank all Committee members for their consideration of this important legislation.

As I set out on Second Reading, the Bill is a vital step in compensating LCF bondholders, and I will now turn directly to the consideration of amendments 1 and 7. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East set out, amendment 1 seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a set of criteria for when the taxpayer should compensate investors for investment failures. In essence, it brings some clarity about when the mechanism that we are adopting, and hopefully funding, through the passage of the Bill would be used. Amendment 7 seeks to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report that assesses the impact of the Government’s compensating the customers of London Capital & Finance plc, as well as broader issues relevant to the mis-selling scandal.

I have listened very carefully to the speeches made during the passage of the Bill, on Second Reading and today, and to the evidence that we received this morning. I am particularly drawn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, who acknowledged that a degree of risk is involved with any investment. With the right set of regulations and requirements, however, investors can be equipped with the right information to understand their risks and to make informed choices. The Government’s scheme appropriately balances the interests of both bondholders and the taxpayer, and it will ensure that all LCF bondholders receive a fair level of compensation for the financial loss they have suffered.

I turn now to compensation. I must reiterate that LCF’s failure was unique and exceptional. It is the only failed mini-bond issuer that was FCA-authorised and was selling bonds in order to on-lend to other companies. In conjunction with the FCA, the Treasury has looked at eight mini-bond firms that have failed in recent years, and LCF is unique in that respect. It is important to emphasise that the Government cannot and should not stand behind every investment loss. As I have probably said previously, LCF’s business model was highly unusual in both its scale and structure, and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding its collapse are unique.

[Peter Grant]

Has the Economic Secretary or any of his advisers actually read the promotional material that companies such as Blackmore Bond were giving out, to assess the number of times that words such as “guarantee” and “secure” were included in those documents? Does he not accept that something needs to be looked at there—maybe not for compensation this time, but certainly for tighter regulation in the future?

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it takes me to the question of what the Government are doing to improve the efficacy of the financial promotions regime that he mentioned in respect of a different failure. We continue to keep the legislative framework underpinning the regulation of financial promotions under review, including whether it is suitable for the digital age. Many of the promotions are obviously online. We will publish a response in the early summer to the consultation on a regulatory gateway for authorised firms approving the promotion of unauthorised firms. It is not an issue that we take lightly. Change, once in place, is designed to strengthen the regime by ensuring that firms able to approve financial promotions are limited to those with the relevant expertise to do so. The FCA will be better able to identify when a financial promotion has breached the restrictions and take action accordingly, but that does not mean that the LCF failure is not unique and of a different scale and quality from some of the other failures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response.

I am not entirely convinced about the relationship between on-lending and the decision to compensate. I am sure that the Minister is correct in the literal sense that this was the only regulated firm that was selling unregulated mini-bonds. I am not saying that the Minister is wrong, but from reading the report I believe that Dame Elizabeth would have made the same findings. The mini-bonds were not doing what it said on the tin: they were not on-lending but pyramid selling.

The degree of failure, the degree of investment loss and the degree of regulatory failure are not directly related to the point about on-lending: it is more substantial than that. I am not convinced that all the elements of the Government’s case add up. It looks to me as though they have had to find a unique element to insulate themselves from court action or other claims.

[Peter Grant]

As an indication of the Government having come to a decision and then looking for an explanation for it, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman picked up in the Minister’s comments how for the first time, in my knowledge, the concept of the scale of the failure—if I wrote down what the Minister said exactly right at the time—was that London Capital & Finance was unique and of a scale and nature that made it different from the rest. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the fact that the scale of the failure has now been quoted as a factor, when it was not before, is an indication that the Government have come to a decision and are now looking for reasons to justify it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I am pleased to speak in support of the amendment. There are two questions if the Government wish to reject it. Assuming that no one has any objection to the idea that somebody should keep an eye on what the Government are doing in response to the Gloster report—that would be a good idea—the questions are who should they report back to and when should they report back. Their response to those questions might provide the only grounds on which they could object to the amendment.

There can be no doubt that the Government must report back to the House of Commons and to Parliament. I know I might not look it—perhaps I do—but I am old enough to remember cases like Polly Peck, one of the great corporate scandals of earlier generations. In response to that, we had the Cadbury report that, in effect, invented the concept of corporate governance. It seems obvious now, but one of the key principles that came out of the report is that once the directors who are supposed to be in charge of a company have taken a decision for something to happen, they cannot just walk away. They have to put a process in place by which they, as the directors, individually and personally, can be satisfied that what they say should happen does happen.

The House of Commons in the UK Parliament is not a board of directors as such, but we still have to take responsibility—all 650 of us, individually and collectively—for making sure that, having had assurances from the Government that they will act either directly or indirectly through agencies such as the FCA, they will do things to sort out a £1 billion scandal. We are the ones who ultimately have to hold them to account for that.

I am not saying that a report or a statement to Parliament is the best possible way of holding the Government to account. Frankly, it is a joke of a holding to account, but it is the best that we are allowed in this place. That is why it is included in many of our amendments. Any argument from the Government that any way of reporting back on such vital recommendations that is anything less than regular statements to the full House of Commons and making themselves available to take questions from, if we are lucky, just 5% of all elected MPs, is just not acceptable.

Secondly, when should the Government report back? That is why I made a point of asking Dame Elizabeth whether six months from now—12 months from the original recommendations—is a reasonable time in which to expect significant progress. Dame Elizabeth made it clear that she cannot tell us about parliamentary procedure and all the rest of it, and I accept that. However, her view was clear that, in six months from now, it would be reasonable to expect there to be significant progress on a significant number of the recommendations. At that point, the House of Commons should get a report back from the Minister to explain what has happened and if it has not happened yet, when it will happen. Most importantly, he will explain why what has not happened has not happened. We have had far too many examples of Ministers giving assurances in good faith but of things not happening or, if they did happen, of their taking far longer than they should have done.

Time matters. None of us knows whether there is another London Capital & Finance already happening, and we heard from witnesses who are convinced that it is. There could be another Blackmore Bond, Basset & Gold or you name the corporate investment mis-selling scandal. It could be happening again right now. We do not know how many of them are on the go just now already swallowing up people’s pensions and savings. If the Minister is not prepared to commit to giving an update within six months, will he tell us what timescale he thinks is reasonable for us to expect real change? “In due course” is just not good enough for people who might be losing their investments now even while we dither and dally about what to do next.

[Gareth Thomas]

I rise to support amendment 2, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East. I share some of the frustration that the hon. Member for Glenrothes aired: this is the only route available to the Opposition to signal to the Government and the FCA the need to provide a continuing update on their progress in implementing the lessons that have been learned from the LCF scandal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East went through some of the many issues and recommendations that Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report highlighted, but let me pick out five in particular.

First, the FCA failed to consider LCF holistically. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, we got Dame Elizabeth to emphasise again in the evidence session today that the most significant issue was a very restricted approach to the regulatory perimeter. I will come back to that point.

Secondly, the FCA’s policy documents were unclear on the handling of key questions. Thirdly, its staff had not been trained sufficiently in various key and crucial matters. Fourthly, there was a series of gaps in the law that needed fixing in order to enable proper regulation. Fifthly, the issue that my right hon. Friend touched on last was the FCA’s scope and capacity to intervene effectively on consumers’ behalf—did it have sufficient powers?

Let me turn to the first of those concerns—the restricted approach to the regulatory perimeter and whether the FCA has learned to consider issues to do with consumers holistically. The example that I gave when I intervened on my right hon. Friend was that of a financial service business that has recommended to its customers something that the FCA has approved, only for it to come down the line, 12 months later, and suggest the reverse approach. That is effectively what is happening in the case of Liverpool Victoria. I do not want to test your patience too much, Ms Ghani, but let me clarify that example very briefly.

Liverpool Victoria converted to a company limited by guarantee from a friendly society two years ago. The FCA looked at it—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before you respond Minister, I call the hon. Member for Glenrothes to make a short contribution.

[Peter Grant]

The Minister referred to the fact that there are ongoing investigations in relation to LCF. Does he recognise that some of the individuals and intermediary businesses that are now under criminal investigation for their part in LCF also played a major part in other mini-bond scandals that I have written to him about separately? Although he made the point about the uniqueness of LCF, the aftershock of LCF is very definitely being felt in other mini-bond scandals that have happened since then.

[John Glen]

Out of courtesy, I am very happy to respond to my colleagues. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East asked why the 80% figure was not 100%. As I have tried to explain through the submissions that I have made, the Government have been trying throughout to balance the interests of bondholders and the taxpayer to ensure that we have a fair level of compensation in respect of the financial losses incurred. The scheme is based on the FSCS level of compensation but, as he knows, it is 80% up to that cap of £68,000 to reflect the unregulated nature of the LCF product.

I emphasise that it is imperative to avoid creating the misconception that Government will stand behind bad investments in future, even where the FSCS does not apply. That would create a moral hazard for investors and potentially lead individuals to choose unsuitable investments thinking that the Government will provide compensation when things go wrong. To avoid creating that misconception, and to take into account the wide range of factors that contributed to the losses that the Government would not ordinarily compensate for, the Government will establish the scheme at the level of 80% of LCF bondholders’ initial investment up to the maximum of £68,000. With any investment, there is clearly a risk that sometimes investors will lose money, and the Government and taxpayer cannot and should not be expected to step in and compensate for every failure and every loss. It would not be right or fair for investors in non-regulated products to receive fuller compensation than those who have invested in regulated products, for which the maximum amount is capped at £85,000 under the FSCS.

On the remarks of the hon. Member for Glenrothes about the individuals involved in an ongoing serious fraud inquiry, I am not familiar with the detail, but obviously I am happy to receive any representations. I hope that brings satisfaction to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Loans to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund

--- Later in debate ---

The Government have a duty to make sure that not-for-profit operators and other legitimate, law-abiding companies and mutuals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has said, are not unfairly affected or carrying the burden of responding to the need to pay out compensation for scams. The savers and pensioners who have invested in that way should not be forced to pay higher charges as a result. I appreciate the pressure on time and hope that the Government will consider the amendment in great detail.

[Peter Grant]

The official Opposition’s spokesperson gave very clear reasons why there is benefit in our agreeing to the amendment. I would like to anticipate the reasons that the Government will give for rejecting it and explain briefly why those reasons are not valid—I nearly said mince, but I do not know if that would be understood.

I hope that the amendment will be regarded, not only today but in the future, in the same spirit as that with which it has been tabled. I can almost see someone at the Dispatch Box, thumping the table in response to a question, saying, “Of course, Mr Speaker, we all know that the official Opposition attempted to delay implementation of the scheme.” Amendment 3 could be misrepresented in that way, but that is clearly not what it seeks to do. It asks the Government to publish the results of something that any responsible Government would do before they created the terms of a loan. All it asks is that, having done an assessment—which surely they will—they tell us the results.

The impact on particular kinds of pension schemes is important, because it could be argued that the reason the clause is needed is that a previous Government did not properly assess the impact of the changes they made in 2015 on certain types of pension holders. That is where pension liberation and pension liberation scams came from. I hope that the Government have learned their lesson. If they do not assess in more detail the impact of major changes on particular types of investors and pension holders, they may be saving up problems for the future.

I will briefly mention the other two amendments. The Government should do what is proposed by amendment 5. Do they have any idea of the level of pension fraud in the United Kingdom right now? They should.

The Minister indicated this morning that the measure proposed by amendment 6 might already have been done by someone else. If that is the case, there is nothing to stop him taking that document and putting a written statement before the House, saying, “I have received the report of xyz this morning and I endorse its contents.” A report is given significantly more weight if it is put on the record in that way. Presenting an annual report also gives Ministers an opportunity to say, “I am unable to endorse its contents, for the following reasons,” but endorsing it gives it a gravity that it might not otherwise have had. The Minister may have noticed that I am no great fan of this Government or this place, but if a Minister of the Crown lays before Parliament a statement taking responsibility for and endorsing the report of a body that reports to their Department, that carries more weight than the report simply appearing somewhere in the pages of the media a day or two later.

[The Chair]

In case any Member did not quite understand what I said at the top, all of the proposed amendments to the clause are being debated now, including amendments 5 and 6. Mr Rodda, to confirm, are you aware of that, and do you wish to speak to amendments 5 and 6 now?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I gather that we have a possible vote in the House, so I will attempt my entire response in 10 minutes. Before I do so, it is right that, on behalf of the entire Committee, I thank you for chairing the Committee, Ms Ghani. As the former ports and shipping Minister, and in a month when we celebrate the first female Royal Navy captain, some might argue that you are a well-qualified captain to keep what is—let us be honest—a motley crew in order. If you run for Speaker, Ms Ghani, I will definitely be supporting you.

Let me discuss what clause 2 does and does not do. It creates a power to make a loan to the board of the Pension Protection Fund, following the decision of 6 November 2020 in the case of the PPF v. Dalriada. It achieves that by inserting a new section into the Pensions Act 2004 to provide the Secretary of State with a power to loan money to the board of the PPF.

I think it is fair to point out to the Committee that the clause deals with matters that are predominantly––almost entirely––to do with 2010 to 2014. Many would wish to make this a case about pension freedoms, when in fact pension freedoms post-dated these matters. It is clearly a serious and important matter, and, following a court decision, the Government have accepted the entirety of that decision.

The practical reality is that the Fraud Compensation Fund has assets of £26.2 million, and the potential liability arising from the court judgment is £350 million. I accept that points have been made in respect of how the loan is to be repaid in the longer term and I will address that, but I shall now turn briefly to the amendments.

Amendment 3 seeks an impact assessment. With great respect to the Members who tabled that request, it is utterly unnecessary. It is, in fact, precluded by the decision of the House on section 22 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, of which I am sure Members are acutely aware. It states that impact assessments are not required in respect of levies or other such charges in these particular circumstances.

Secondly, the clause is implementing a court judgment.

[Peter Grant]

Will the Minister clarify his last comment? Did he say that impact assessments are not required or that they are not permitted? Surely, if they are not required, we can still ask for one if we think it would be useful.

[Guy Opperman]

That is a very fair question that I shall attempt to answer while I am on my feet, but I believe that it is not required. Section 22 of the 2015 Act excludes impact from the definition of regulatory provision, so I believe that it is an exclusion rather than a requirement. If I am wrong in any way, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and correct myself. I may be corrected while I am on my feet, although in the brave new world of covid, that is quite difficult, as I am sure that he understands.

Clearly, if we were to do an impact assessment at this time, it would fundamentally delay the implementation of payment to members, and the blunt truth is that the PPF will run out of money by October if we do not progress this legislation. The levy increase will be consulted on post the passing of this Bill. It will need consultation, regulations and debate in the usual way.

Amendment 5 would also delay the progress of this matter. The Government will respond to the Work and Pensions Committee, to which I gave detailed evidence, before the end of the summer term. The full response of the Government in respect of all matters relating to such scams will be made before the end of term. We are already progressing Project Bloom and there is the work of the Money and Pensions Service that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the previous Act that we worked on. We have produced section 125 of the Pension Schemes Act 2021, which Her Majesty signed on the dotted line in early February, and the consequential transfer regulations that we have consulted on over the past month to ensure that pension scams are prevented on an ongoing basis.

I have been asked to address other matters. It is clear that Ministers are engaging with various organisations, including Google and Facebook. The two of us have made our views very clear to those organisations about how they should regulate themselves. I agree that Pension Wise should be used more but, with great respect, I disagree with the Chair of the Select Committee’s proposal for the many good reasons that I outlined in the debates on Report and Third Reading of the 2021 Act. Clearly the work that we are doing jointly with the Treasury and other organisations, including the FCA, on stronger nudges towards using Pension Wise and other things will make a massive difference.

On amendment 6, there is already an annual report. In true Chamberlain style, I have it here in my hand: the annual report of the Pension Protection Fund, which is published every July. I know, Ms Ghani, that you will have read the most recent version, and will be looking forward with bated breath to the July 2021 report, which will specifically address the issues whose importance today’s witness made very clear.

In those circumstances, I invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Business Rates Reduction Services

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to begin the summing up in this debate. Like others who have spoken, it is clear that if there had not been other major attractions on elsewhere in the House, there would have been far more people wanting to take part in this debate. I presume that is why the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) applied for the 90-minute debate. In normal circumstances, I think the 90 minutes would have been heavily over-subscribed. The initial title of the debate that appeared in the business last week made us in the SNP wonder if it was relevant in Scotland at all, as business rates, and everything to do with them, are devolved. However, it is obvious that the concern is not so much about how the business rates system operates in the different UK nations: it is about the regulation of business practices in general.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton spoke very eloquently, and clearly on the back of a significant amount of work to find out his facts, for which I commend him, but he spoke about a problem that is not specifically about the regulation of one particular service; it is about business practices that are dishonest, predatory, unacceptable in any circumstances, illegal in many circumstances and, as Members have suggested, probably illegal in the circumstances that we have heard about today.

I believe that such practices should be illegal, and enforceable not only in the civil courts. There should be circumstances where this behaviour crosses the line and is recognised as criminal activity, so that the directors of the companies concerned can find themselves personally facing financial sanctions or even imprisonment for the damage that they are doing to other people’s businesses and livelihoods.

My concern about the way the hon. Member introduced the debate is that if we close down the opportunity for the shysters, to use his term, to exploit businesses by setting up fake business rates reduction schemes, it will not take them a week to find a new way to scam other honest businesses, or even the same honest business again—for example, the provision of telephone services. A long-established and very well respected household-name business in my constituency was brought close to insolvency by a telecoms scam. A business offered it a better deal on its phone systems than the one it already had.

Many of the practices that the hon. Member mentioned happened to my constituent, and to many others as well—contracts being changed, documents being taken away and never returned, and customers not seeing the contract that was being used against them in a court action. All the practices that will happen with dishonest business rates advisers will happen with dishonest telephone system salespersons, and with dishonest businesses in almost any sector of the economy that we look at.

Although I recognise that there are specific issues about the way that business rates reliefs and reductions operate that can provide an opportunity for dishonest so-called advisory services, we need to look at it much more widely than simply that one service. There are certainly legitimate questions about whether property valuation is the best way to assess businesses’ financial contribution to the whole community. There are legitimate questions about whether property valuation is the best way to tax individuals for their contribution to local council services. There are certainly questions about whether it is sustainable that those are the only two taxes that most councils can vary to any extent in order to fund their services.

Those are discussions for a different day, possibly after the economy has recovered from the shocks of covid and the subsequent lockdown. The difficulty that we face is that a lot of individuals have been persuaded to incorporate their self-employed microbusiness as a limited company, and they did not realise when they did it that they lost almost all the consumer protections that they had as an individual. I put it to the Minister that we might need to look at amending consumer protection legislation so that very small businesses have a degree of consumer protection in the same way that we do as individuals.

Individuals get consumer protection because it is recognised that we are smaller than the people trying to sell us stuff. We often do not have the resources. We certainly cannot afford the lawyers that some of them can. That is why consumer protection legislation was introduced and has been amended. Is it time to apply the same principle to very small businesses? Even though they are businesses, and all businesses in some ways are equal in the eyes of the law, do we need to start introducing special consumer protection legislation that applies to small businesses, regardless of whether they are incorporated? I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that point.

For the record, when I have done some checks I have found at least one person called Stephen Hughes who has run property-related companies in the Greater Manchester area. There are obviously a lot of companies with RVA or very similar sets of initials in their names. We have to make it clear that companies and individuals who, simply by coincidence, have similar names to those mentioned today are, as far as we can tell, completely innocent of wrongdoing. Nothing we are saying here should be taken to impugn the integrity of anyone other than the specific individual and business named today.

I will bring my remarks to a close with a firm message for the Government: people who set up a business with dishonourable or dishonest intentions, simply to prey on legitimate, honest and hard-working small businesses anywhere in these islands, should not be allowed to trade. If they are still allowed to carry out their nefarious practices, regulation of those businesses is not strong enough—it has to be tightened, and it has to be tightened soon, before we see more valuable small businesses going to the wall.

Finance (No.2) Bill (Third sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

[Kemi Badenoch]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

[Peter Grant]

I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and other members of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm for their work in developing recommendations for the improved regulation of the industry. When the time comes for the Government, led by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, to implement those recommendations or something very similar, which they will have to do, the moral imperative is now on the Government to act. It will simply not be morally acceptable for the Treasury’s interest in that £3 billion to get in the way of addressing what is now one of the greatest social diseases affecting these nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

[Peter Grant]

[Kemi Badenoch]

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

[Peter Grant]

[Kemi Badenoch]

[Peter Grant]

[Kemi Badenoch]

Finance (No.2) Bill (Third sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I thank the Minister for her explanation of clause 98, which restricts the entitlement to use red diesel and related biodiesel for most sectors from April 2022.

We support the Government’s intention behind the measure, which was first announced in the 2020 Budget. There is a clear need to ensure that fuel duty rebates are as limited as possible in order to meet our net-zero commitment. I note that several sectors retain their entitlement to use red diesel, including agriculture, rail transport and permanently moored houseboats. More recently, the Government have announced further exemptions, including generating power from non-commercial premises for amateur sports clubs and for travelling fairs and circuses.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the impact on individual sectors. I know that the waste sector made a representation to the Treasury arguing that removing its red diesel entitlements

“could increase the cost of recycling, which may result in waste being diverted to landfill instead and the cost of recycled goods increasing relative to virgin materials.”

Would the Exchequer Secretary assure us that that issue was looked at carefully and that the impact on recycling was considered? Would she also say a little about compliance in the industries where the entitlement is being removed? She mentioned that the Treasury had been working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that compliance was followed, but what monitoring and enforcement will the Government use to ensure that red diesel is used only for approved purposes?

May I turn briefly to recreational boat owners in Northern Ireland? The Government have confirmed that private pleasure craft in Northern Ireland will have to use white diesel from June this year in order to implement a ruling of the European Court of Justice. The Royal Yachting Association, British Marine and the Cruising Association have raised concerns about the practical effects of the decision, including the limited supply of white diesel for private pleasure craft users in Northern Ireland. Would the Minister reassure us that HMRC and the Treasury will work closely with those organisations to minimise disruption? Would she give us more information on the steps that have been taken so far to ensure that? Finally, will the Government take any further action to encourage the growth of cleaner fuel alternatives in sectors such as the construction industry?

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I could repeat much of what I have to say about new clause 3 when we debate new clause 5, but in the interests of brevity I will not make the same comments again at that point.

We welcome the fact that the tax system is used to encourage individuals and businesses to operate in a more environmentally responsible and sustainable way, but it is important that when we make changes we are prepared to look at them afterwards to see whether they are having the expected impact. That can be quite difficult with Government changes to tax policy, because the policy aim is not always immediately obvious. How much of this change is an income-raising exercise for the Treasury, and how much is designed to reduce the use not only of severely environmentally damaging hydrocarbon fuels, but of other fuels which, although they may be less damaging, are damaging none the less?

Biofuels are not a guilt-free pass. Even though they may appear to be renewable, their use has an impact on the environment, for example where the resources of less well-off countries are used to grow biofuels for us to use instead of food to eat for the people who live there. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that simply by converting our excessive use of fuel to use of renewable fuels, we are somehow doing all we need to.

The second reason why regular reviews are needed is that as well as unintended consequences, there will be mistakes. One third of the Government amendments in Committee of the whole House were introduced to correct drafting mistakes, either in the Bill itself or in related legislation. People make mistakes—hon. Members may even have noticed the drafting mistake in the wording of our new clause 3, which the Exchequer Secretary so kindly pointed out. However, given that her objection to new clause 3 is that the timing does not work, I would appreciate a commitment from her that the Government will comply with the spirit of the new clause in a more appropriate timescale when the impact of the changes can be measured.

The Scottish National party supports the Government’s stated aim of encouraging a more environmentally sustainable and responsible approach to use of the earth’s resources; we just think that they should acknowledge that they might not always get it right the first time. They should build in a process by which we can review the policy after a reasonable time and make the changes that may be needed, sooner rather than later.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I will take hon. Members’ questions in turn, starting with the question on private pleasure craft in Northern Ireland.

From later this year, private pleasure-craft users in Northern Ireland will no longer be able to use red diesel for propelling their craft, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead mentioned. This will achieve consistency with the 2018 judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union and ensure that the UK meets its international obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. That is the primary reason for it, but it will also align with the way in which fuel used by private pleasure craft in the Republic of Ireland is treated, which should make it simpler for craft users to access the fuel that they need if they sail between Northern Ireland and Ireland. On the hon. Lady’s point about easy access to white diesel, I think that it will work in the same way as in the Republic of Ireland. The Government also intend to introduce a new relief scheme in Northern Ireland to ensure that the average private pleasure-craft user will not pay a higher rate of duty on non-propulsion use than they do now.

On new clause 3, we fully understand the point that the hon. Member for Glenrothes makes, but it takes time for us to be able to analyse what is happening with changes to tax. That is why we want to monitor fuel-duty receipts for red and white diesel, which will enable us to evaluate the extent to which the users of red diesel who have lost their entitlement are switching to greener alternatives. It is really important that we allow time for the policy to bed in before we carry out reviews, but the Treasury always keeps all tax policy under review. We want to ensure that we encourage the transition to net zero as well as maximising revenue for the Exchequer. We do not want to lose money, nor do we want emissions. I reassure him that we are all on common ground and will work together to achieve those stated goals.

On the sectors that continue to have the red diesel entitlement, I can tell the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead that we looked very hard at the sectors that could not easily switch to alternatives, and at those in which the impact on the consumer would be quite high, as opposed to those within the supply chain. That is how we came to specific sectors such as travelling circuses and amateur sports clubs, which we feel would benefit from continued red diesel entitlement.

On the question of biofuels, to respond to the hon. Member for Glenrothes, all users of biofuels will be taxed at the same rate as ordinary diesel, to reflect the fact that biodiesel releases just as much carbon dioxide when burned. The Government recognise that renewable biofuels deliver greenhouse gas savings, as they are sourced from feedstocks that extract CO₂ from the atmosphere. To incentivise the use of these low-carbon fuels and reduce emissions from fuel supplied for use in transport, the Government introduced the renewable transport fuel obligation in 2008, whereby all road transport fossil-fuel suppliers in the UK are required to show that a percentage of the total road and non-road mobile machinery fuels they supply come from sustainable and renewable energy sources. Again, I remind him that the Government keep all of these rates under review.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

Clause 99

Rates of tobacco products duty

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant]

The disadvantage of not speaking on every clause just for the sake of it is that sometimes people forget that someone is there.

I hear what the Minister says about new clause 4, but there is still a need for more reporting to Parliament. I appreciate that it is yet another one of those cases where the main responsibility lies with a different Government Department but the impact on the Treasury is substantial, which is why it is part of this Bill.

The Minister said that the increase is in line with inflation. Although that is technically correct, the headline rate of inflation is 3.1% and all of what are effectively income tax bands for the gambling sector are going up by 3.1%. Any increase in gross gaming yield is not caused by a price increase, as would apply anywhere else. If the gaming yield increases by 10%, that is because people are spending 10% more on gambling. The price of a bet on the grand national does not increase. What is happening is that either people are choosing to bet more than they were before, or more people are getting into heavier gambling than they were before.

Debt inflation is relevant to the income of low-paid workers, yet earlier when discussing clause 5, I think, there was a decision for them to get virtually no increase in their income tax bands for the next five years—0.5%, which is then frozen for four years. I would be interested to learn from the Minister’s response why the gambling industry needs to get its tax bands uprated for inflation every year, but hard-pressed workers who are only just making enough to get by are effectively seeing their tax bands increase by about a 10th of a percent compounded year on year.

Last year, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee reported on gambling regulation. Again, while the regulation is a matter for a different Department, we cannot ignore it here. Before the pandemic started, gambling was taking over the lives of 395,000 people in the UK. Of them, 55,000 are children under the age of 16. Another 1.8 million people were at risk of becoming problem gamblers, and it is likely that quite a few of those 1.8 million are now problem gamblers. No matter how locked down someone is, one thing they can do is gamble online, often with money they do not have, for 24 hours a day.

We do not know how much problem gambling costs public services. The lowest estimate is over a quarter of a billion pounds, and the highest puts it at well over £1 billion. The financial year on which those two reports are based, 2018-19, showed that the total gross gambling yield, so the money they take in minus the winnings they pay out—effectively the gambling industry’s gross profit—is £11.3 billion. There are indications that in the following year it was up to £14 billion. Gaming duties bring in about £3 billion to the Treasury, which is why we are discussing it today. The Gambling Commission, which is supposed to regulate all of that, has a separate levy by way of the application of licence fees paid by the industry and set by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. That brings in the princely sum of £19 million—million with an “m”—to try and regulate an industry with gross profits of £11 billion, with a “b”. It is clear that it is not an equal contest.

As with so many of the clauses we are discussing, the impacts on thousands of our constituents and, in the case of problem gambling, the horrific and often tragic impacts on them, may not be in the scope of the Bill, but it would simply be unacceptable for us to ignore those impacts when we consider the relatively small part that the Treasury plays in the Government’s relationship with the gambling industry. It is not acceptable to look at clause 104 as just a revenue raising exercise for the Treasury, although sometimes it seems that that is all the interest the Treasury takes in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clauses 105 and 106 make changes to ensure that the climate change levy’s main and reduced rates are updated for years 2022-23 and 2023-24, to reflect the rates announced at Budget 2020. Clause 107 increases both the standard and the lower rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from 1 April 2021, as announced at Budget 2020. Clause 108 repeals the provisions in the Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to carbon emissions tax, which were not commenced following the Government’s decision to implement a UK emissions trading scheme from 1 January 2021 instead.

The climate change levy came into effect in April 2001. It is a UK-wide tax on the non-domestic use of energy from gas, electricity, liquefied petroleum gas and solid fuels. It promotes the efficient use of energy to help meet the UK’s international and domestic targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. At Budget 2016, it was announced that electricity and gas climate change levy rates would be equalised by 2025, because electricity is becoming a much cleaner source of energy than gas as we reduce our reliance on coal and use more renewable sources instead.

Landfill tax has been immensely successful in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill. That tax provides a disincentive to landfill and has contributed to a 70% decrease in waste sent to landfill since 2000. Reducing waste sent to landfill provides both economic and environmental benefits.

[Peter Grant]

How much of the reduction in waste going to landfill is due to a reduction in waste being produced, and how much of it is waste ending up in farmers’ fields and play parks and just being fly-tipped illegally, at further increased cost to the environment, and indeed to the public purse, for clearing it up?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I believe that a significant amount of it is due to the landfill tax. We have been looking at the rate in comparison year on year, and our analysis shows that the landfill tax is having a significant impact. There will always be fly-tipping, irrespective of what the tax rate on landfill is.

Clauses 105 and 106 make changes to the climate change levy rates for 2022-23 and 2023-24, to continue the rebalancing of electricity and gas rates announced in Budget 2016. The 2022-23 and 2023-24 rates were announced in Budget 2020 in order to give businesses plenty of notice to prepare for the changes. At Budget 2020, it was also announced that rates for liquified petroleum gas would be frozen to 31 March 2024.

To limit the economic impact of the tax rate changes on energy-intensive businesses, participants in the climate change agreement scheme will see their climate change levy liability increase by RPI inflation only. That protects the competitiveness of more than 9,000 facilities from energy-intensive industries across some 50 sectors.

When disposed of at a landfill site, each tonne of standard-rated material is currently taxed at £94.15, and lower-rate material draws a tax of £3.00 per tonne. These changes will see rates per tonne increase to £96.70 and £3.10 respectively from 1 April 2021. By increasing rates in line with RPI, we maintain the crucial incentive for the industry to use alternative waste treatment methods and continue the move towards a more circular economy. The changes made by clause 108 will repeal the provisions in the Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to carbon emissions tax, which were not commenced.

New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central, for Glenrothes, for Gordon and for Midlothian, would require the Government to publish a report, within six months of the passing of the Act, on the effects of what would then be sections 105, 106 and 108 on progress towards the Government’s climate emissions targets. As clauses 105 and 106 make changes to ensure that the climate change levy’s main and reduced rates are updated for years 2022-23 and 2023-24, such a report would not be able meaningfully to assess the impact of these changes within six months of the passing of the Act. The Government currently assess and monitor environmental impacts across existing tax measures, and do that alongside other, complementary measures, such as regulation and spending, to understand the impact of policy making in the round. That alludes to the point made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes about landfill tax.



Clause 108 repeals the provisions in Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to a carbon emissions tax, which was not commenced because the Government decided that a UK emissions trading scheme administered by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would be the best replacement for the EU emissions trading system from 1 January 2021.

As it was not commenced, the carbon emissions tax’s role in meeting the Government’s climate emissions targets cannot be measured. However, Opposition Members should be reassured that the UK ETS, a market-based measure covering a third of UK emissions, will help to deliver a robust carbon price signal. The energy White Paper committed to exploring expanding the UK emissions trading scheme to other sectors and set out our aspirations to continue to lead the world on carbon pricing in the run-up to COP26. The Treasury will continue to work closely with BEIS on the introduction of the UK emissions trading scheme and will keep all environmental taxes under review to ensure that they continue to support the Government’s climate commitments.

In conclusion, the changes made by clauses 105 and 106 will update the climate change levy main and reduced rates for 2022-23 and 2023-24, as announced at Budget 2020 and to deliver on previous Budget announcements. Clause 107 will increase the two rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from 1 April 2021, as announced at Budget 2020. Clause 108 will ensure that the statute book is up to date by repealing the provisions in Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to a carbon emissions tax that were not commenced. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee and ask that the Committee rejects new clause 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

The reason why a regular report to Parliament is needed on these taxes is that despite the optimistic assessment that the Exchequer Secretary set out, there are far too many taxes, including the landfill tax. With far too many of the officially designated environmental taxes, and an awful lot of taxes that are not officially environmental but that have an impact on the environment, the Government do not have a very clear handle on what is going on.

In February, the National Audit Office report “Environmental tax measures” stated:

“The exchequer departments do not specify how they will measure the impact of environmental tax measures.”

Before the tax has even been introduced, nobody is clear about what environmental impact they want it to have. The report also states:

“HMRC’s approach to evaluation provides it with limited insight into the environmental impact of taxes.”

Whether those taxes’ main intention is to influence behaviour rather than raise money, or whether they are introduced as a revenue-raising measure that we hope will also have beneficial environmental impacts, the Government’s track record has been that they do not really know what they intend the environmental impact to be before they start, and they usually do not collect information to give a reliable assessment of what the environmental impact has been once the tax is in place. In fact, the revenue consequences of the very small number of taxes that are officially environmental taxes are dwarfed by those of tax reliefs against other forms of taxation for reasons of environmental sustainability.

I will not press new clause 5 to a vote just now, and we will not oppose clauses 105 to 108, but I want to give a message to the Government about their forward setting of objectives and their monitoring of the environmental impact of taxes of all kinds: they really have to do better, and they have to start doing better very quickly.

[Kemi Badenoch]

On environmental impact, it is important for the hon. Gentleman to realise that where there are multivariable reasons why things occur, measurement will never be 100% accurate. We give the impact that we can measure; others may dispute it, but the Government have taken a view.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the landfill tax in an intervention that I responded to in my speech, but it is a tax that is devolved in Scotland. He did not tell us what the Scottish Government are doing differently from the UK Government—while he was criticising the UK Government’s landfill tax policy, I think he probably forgot that it was a devolved matter.

[Peter Grant]

rose—

Finance (No.2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Public Bill Committees

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Dame Angela.

I am pleased to begin by discussing clause 112, which, as we heard, introduces two new schedules. The first, schedule 23, sets out a new points-based penalty system for the failure to make, or the late submission of, various returns. The second, schedule 24, makes minor changes to the penalty for deliberately withholding information from HMRC by failing to submit returns.

We welcome the stated aim of the Government: to encourage compliance without wanting to punish taxpayers who make occasional mistakes. It is right to give people in the regular course of events an opportunity to clear penalty points without incurring a penalty charge, while making sure a stronger deterrent is provided in cases where behaviour is shown to be deliberate. The explanatory notes for the clause point out that the regime has been developed through three separate consultations. However, as the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group—LITRG—makes clear, while HMRC has taken on board comments on the structure of a new penalty regime, it considers legislation in the Bill to be far more complex than originally envisaged.

LITRG points out that taxpayers come under Making Tax Digital for VAT for the first time in April 2022, and Making Tax Digital for income tax self-assessment for the first time in April 2023, so they face a complex and unfamiliar penalty regime at the same time as having to get to grips with their obligations under Making Tax Digital. For people with a single source of income, Making Tax Digital for income tax self-assessment appears to have six separate filing obligations over the course of a year, for which penalties could be incurred: four periodic updates, one end-of-period statement, and one final declaration.

I welcome the fact that the Minister set out his view of the suggestion by LITRG that the introduction of the new penalty regime should be delayed to allow those taxpayers time to familiarise themselves with the new obligations before they begin to accrue penalty points for non-compliance. I would also welcome the Minister’s thoughts on the suggestion by LITRG that the legislation should include an obligation on HMRC to keep taxpayers regularly informed of their penalty points total.

Clause 113 introduces schedule 25, which includes a new two-penalty model for businesses and individuals that fail to pay their tax liability on time. The first penalty is 2% of the amount of tax unpaid 15 days after the due date, plus 2% of the amount of tax unpaid 30 days after the due date. The second penalty is a penalty interest rate of 4% per annum that applies from the 31st day of the tax being unpaid. Again, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has expressed a number of concerns about the operation of this new regime, including concern about the interaction of time-to-pay arrangements with the new late-payment penalty regime. We would welcome the Minister’s views on that point.

Clause 114 introduces schedule 26, which, as we heard, is consequential to previous clauses and schedules that have been introduced. We tabled amendment 26, which suggests leaving out schedule 26, paragraph 36. We do not intend to press the amendment, but we welcome the Minister’s clarification on the point we sought to raise by tabling it. Our understanding was that schedule 26, paragraph 36 amended section 1303 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009. We were concerned that the amendment appeared to remove a prohibition on any surcharge in VAT, a penalty for missed payment, late payment or non-payment of VAT being written off as a loss in the company’s taxes. We therefore welcome the Minister’s clarification regarding the intention behind that amendment, particularly the message that it sends.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure once again to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela. As the Minister pointed out, the intention behind amendment 24 is to reduce HMRC’s time limit to assess whether a penalty is due if someone is late in submitting their statutory return. Although the Minister is right that the two years have been there for a long time, that does not mean that two years is right. It seems unfair, considering how quickly potential taxpayers are expected to respond to queries from HMRC, which has been known to take two years to make an assessment for which it already has all the necessary information. The stated policy intention of the new regime is to be proportionate, penalising only the small minority who persistently miss their submission obligations, rather than those who make occasional mistakes. However, the Bill as drafted provides for penalties to be levied against people who have made occasional mistakes and allows HMRC up to two years—and an even longer period in some cases not covered by our amendment—to assess a penalty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank both colleagues for their contributions. I reassure the hon. Member for Glenrothes that the Government take seriously all such interventions and all our serious interactions with other political parties and hon. Members across the House.

The hon. Members for Ealing North and for Glenrothes both mentioned complexity. When introducing any new regime, let alone one in an area as complex as tax, there is inevitably an impression of complexity and a worry about the initial uptake. However, these concerns can be addressed and are being addressed in the legislation.

I remind the Committee that the reforms have been widely welcomed. The Chartered Institute of Taxation says that it

“welcomes the harmonisation of interest rules…and that HMRC will apply a light-touch…This will allow otherwise compliant taxpayers enough time to adjust to the new rules.”

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which both hon. Members mentioned, says:

“HMRC have consulted on many aspects of the penalty regime in recent years, particularly with a view to ensuring that it is fit for purpose for Making Tax Digital. This is welcome, as is the fact that a number of LITRG concerns have been taken on board.”

It is good to see that; I am glad that the group recognises it, because this has been a carefully considered piece of legislation. An organisation called Buzzacott, which describes itself as a UK top 20 accountancy firm, says:

“This is a big change…but the system ought to be fairer because it takes account of the number of filings a business has to make, and it’s also less likely to excessively penalise a trader…The light touch in the first year is welcome”.

That ought to give colleagues a degree of comfort on the issue of complexity, but of course it is important to raise it, and Ministers and HMRC are aware of it.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes raised the two-year period; I think that he was trying to score a political point about HMRC staffing. I remind him that the SNP was expressing concerns about alleged staffing issues at HMRC before the extraordinary events of the past 12 months, in which HMRC has proven its outstanding ability to deal with the covid schemes and has been through everything that one could imagine in the pandemic.

I do not think there is any serious suggestion that the tax agenda, which antedates any concerns that the SNP has expressed with respect to the two-year period, is seriously being put at risk. The fact is that some people have very complex tax affairs and sometimes, in a small minority of cases, HMRC requires some time to reflect on them before it makes a judgment. As a matter of justice, as well as of combating tax avoidance, the two-year period should allow it a proper process of reflection.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the idea of removing the first penalty, but as I pointed out the effect would be to remove a great deal of the early energy that incentivises people to comply with their tax obligations, and which is actually rather important. The SNP’s recommendation might have the effect of diminishing the number of people who comply with their tax obligations, because it would remove that initial first penalty, which is a little nudge.

[Peter Grant]

I take the Financial Secretary’s point that what we suggest might make things better or worse than what the Government suggest. Leaving aside the possible practical issue with the timescales of some of the reports that we suggested, does he admit that it would be a good idea to bring back a report at an appropriate juncture to see whether the new regime encourages compliance in comparison with the current regime? Will he agree to table an amendment similar to our new clause 6, but with a different timescale, in due course?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

Clause 123 amends schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008 to give HMRC a new power to issue an information notice for the purposes of collecting a tax debt. We would like to raise with the Minister a point articulated by the Chartered Institute of Taxation in connection with the amended schedule 36. It is concerned that the new notice for collection of tax debts can be used for the purposes of collecting a tax debt, whenever arising. That means that the use of these notices is not restricted to cases involving tax years after the measure becomes law, which raises a concern that this is a very wide-ranging power. What reassurance can the Minister offer that HMRC will use the new power granted by this clause proportionately and with appropriate oversight?

[Peter Grant]

I do not have any issue with the changes proposed in clause 123 but, like the hon. Member for Ealing North, I think it is important to make clear that, in passing the legislation, Parliament has to give what may appear to be draconian powers to HMRC or other Government agencies to use when they have to. We then have to rely on Ministers to set policy, and sometimes on HMRC or Government Departments, in terms of their operational management decisions, not to use those draconian powers except when they absolutely must.

As we have begun to come out of the covid recession, a lot of individuals and businesses have found that their cash-flow position is as bad as it has ever been—and hopefully as bad as it ever will be. If HMRC manages itself only in terms of its own performance statistics on how quickly it can get the money in, there is a danger that it will do damage to the wider economy; in the longer term, it will do damage to the public finances. If a business is struggling to pay its tax, it is struggling to pay all its bills too. If we move in too quickly to get the tax out of that business, the chances are that it will go down and will no longer have any chance of paying its suppliers, so the suppliers go down as well. We will end up with a domino effect, with several businesses, and possibly three or four times as many jobs, being lost.

It is not a question of saying that there are circumstances where HMRC should say to somebody, “You don’t need to pay your debts,” but there will be times when it will be better for it to say, “We aren’t going to chase you for your debts now, but it’s up to you to get your circumstances sorted out, and then we will expect you to pay your dues.” I say that because I have known instances in constituency casework, as I suspect many Members have, where HMRC did not seem to take that approach. It appeared to have been chasing businesses to the point of liquidation, and individuals to the point of bankruptcy, for amounts of money that, in the grander scheme of things, were completely irrelevant to it, but highly relevant to those individuals and businesses.

I hope that we will get an assurance from the Financial Secretary today that the draconian powers in the Bill and in existing legislation will be used with an even softer touch over the next few years than they were supposed to be used with in the past. Otherwise, we will find that the difficulties that businesses are facing will get worse over the next few years, rather than better.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank both hon. Members for their questions. In a way, the clause is poorly named, because this is a change to allow information notices to be used to obtain documents; it is not, in and of itself, a measure that collects tax debt. The notice is an information power.

Tax authorities sometimes need to verify what they are told by taxpayers. A request that routinely arises is to look for details about transactions or movements of money in cases in which there is reason to believe that assets may have been concealed. A request may be an invitation to look for information to find out whether a bank account exists or has recently been closed. At its simplest, a request may be to find out the balance on an account.

It is important to say that the Government take very seriously all the input from our stakeholders, and the Chartered Institute of Taxation is an important stakeholder among many others. It has been striking how, over the past year or two, stakeholders have been very positive in flagging the degree of engagement that HMRC has had with them. There is a wide, close and professionally engaged relationship between the parties, and stakeholders’ concerns are carefully evaluated as part of the policy process.

It is also true that HMRC is bending over backwards to maintain its activities as a tax authority, while recognising—as the hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned—the extremely difficult circumstances in which many companies have been placed by the pandemic and its effects. That is why there is a deferred payment scheme for VAT and Time To Pay arrangements that have been allowed to grow as they have done, and why in due course the Government are bringing in breathing space for people with debt.

A wide range of measures have been designed and put in place to protect people who may currently be vulnerable. In this case, the effect of expanding information notices is to implement a recommendation from the OECD’s global forum. Again, there was criticism from the forum that the UK was unable to use its information powers to enforce tax debts and unable to assist with information requests from other jurisdictions. Clause 123 will allow us to improve the already excellent levels of HMRC co-operation, which is only to the good in supporting international co-operation and exchange of information and the collection of tax debts that may be due.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 123 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124

Miscellaneous amendments of Schedule 36 to FA 2008

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Clauses 131 and 132 simply set out the Bill’s legal interpretation and short title in the usual manner for such legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 131 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Review of capital allowances and business reliefs

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by sections 15 to 20 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must compare estimated GDP in each of the next five years under the follow scenarios—

(a) these provisons are enacted,

(b) these provisions are not enacted, and

(c) the UK fiscal stimulus package, as a percentage of GDP, mirrors that of the united States.

(3) In this section— “parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland; and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”.—(Peter Grant.)

This new clause would require a report on the impact of the capital allowance provisions on GDP, comparing them with the impact of copying the level of fiscal intervention in the US.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Peter Grant]

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

I am pleased to finally move the new clause after four or five days of heavy debate in Committee and two days of debate on Second reading, which is an indication of the way things happen here. The wording of the new clause is quite deliberately designed to tightly fit within the scope of the Bill, although it will be no surprise to Members that I will highlight a number of wider issues.

The UK Parliament’s and UK Government’s existing way of putting forward and approving tax and public spending plans does not really allow them to be gone into in a great deal of detail, so we ask for some way to compare what would have happened if none of the changes enacted by clauses 15 to 20 had been made, how the economy looks when they have happened and how the economy would have looked if the Government had done something a bit more ambitious and radical.

The phrase “be bold like Biden” has become very popular since the American presidential election. We do not need a comparison with the exact measures taken there, but we are seeing an economy that is in some ways quite similar to the United Kingdom’s beginning to take tax break and tax incentive decisions very different from those the current UK Government have taken. It would be good if there was some way in which we could look at what impact those UK Government decisions have had.

There have been some indications from usually quite reliable commentators that—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Dame Angela. Members will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat everything I said before the Division. It has been quite authoritatively suggested that if the stimulus package put forward by the UK Government had been as bold and radical as that put forward by President Biden, the impact in Scotland alone would have been 134,000 additional jobs, and the impact on UK debt would have been unnoticeable—the figures were that the debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of quarter 2 next year would have been 118% rather than 119%, which is easily within the margin of forecasting errors. That is just one example of where a different approach—had there been a way of arriving at one in time—may have made a significant difference, and I do not imagine that that would have applied only in Scotland. If we took equivalent figures England, we would be looking at maybe 1 million or 1.5 million more jobs by this time next year.

With all of these proposals, we are saying that there is a better way for this Parliament and Government to arrive at the final decisions on their tax and spending plans. If we look at what happens in some of the devolved Parliaments, their Budgets are significantly smaller. Arguably, they are not nearly as complex, because those Parliaments have few or no direct powers on most taxes or welfare payments. The Scottish Parliament’s Budget is on the go for most of the year, and almost every Budget eventually gets passed. Bits have been put in at the request of most, and sometimes all, of the Opposition groups in the Scottish Parliament. Even during the short period when there was an overall majority SNP Government, almost every Budget that was passed had bits put in, after the draft Budget had been published, at the request of Opposition parties. Incidentally, some of the most effective ones were submitted by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party and accepted by an SNP Government, because both parties were prepared to look at what was in the best interests of Scotland, rather than caring about the party political advantage to be gained.

The difficulty in the way that we do Budgets here is that, by the time anything in the Budget is public, battle lines are already drawn. It is confrontational, rather than co-operative. It is about putting forward suggested changes that one almost hopes the other side will not accept, so as to have a go at them at election time. That is great fun and electioneering, and the tabloid press loves it because it raises the temperature quickly. I sometimes wonder whether, by doing things that way, we might be missing a chance to finish with a better set of proposals, whether on the tax-raising or public-spending side. We could end up with a set of proposals that would come much closer to what we all thought we wanted to achieve when we first arrived here. That is clearly not something that I can put forward as a proposal for this Bill. The difficulty with the way we do things here is that there is never a chance to do that.

It is not possible to set tax policies and then wonder where to make the cuts or invest the money. It is not possible to set spending decisions and then wonder how to raise the money. It has to be an iterative process and has to be gone round three or four times a year. It is much better if that is done by discussion and then, if necessary, to have the set-piece debates, the disagreements and Divisions at the end of the process.

I will simply leave those thoughts with the Committee. I hope the Minister will feed them back to his colleagues in the Treasury. Colleagues in the SNP who have been part of the Treasury team much longer than I have been pushing such ideas for a number of years. There have been some changes to practice as a result. I am even more convinced, having had my first shot at a Finance Bill as part of the SNP Treasury team, that there are better ways to do things. Believe it or not, I actually want to make things better for this place, during the relatively short time that I hope to be here. Finally, if it helps the Committee, I will not say anything on new clause 7, because any arguments on that have already been had.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes. I must say that the Scottish National party does not have an international reputation for the bipartisan way in which it treats partisan party politics. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is offering the cross-party approach he advocated in his remarks.

The hon. Gentleman says that there is a better way. He should know that the Government are very much committed to improving the tax process wherever we can. We operate within a set of existing arrangements and political procedures that have proven their worth over many decades, but we are constantly seeking to improve. The classic example was our tax policies and consultation day, which we had in March this year. That was an attempt to create more transparency and to give more prominence to measures that might otherwise have been lost in the Budget process, in order to allow the widest possible public scrutiny and debate.

To pick up the point the hon. Gentleman made about international comparisons, I can understand why it appears interesting to him, but a few seconds of reflection would yield the thought that it really is not for the Government to be publishing analyses of other countries’ tax policies or fiscal arrangements. It really is not for us to be choosing one country, even if we were committed on that route, rather than another, because where would that end? Of course, there are many other institutions around the world that will provide precisely that kind of global comparison service. I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view about the efficacy of that approach.

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is not pressing new clause 7, on the correct grounds that we have discussed much of it already, but, in general, the Government do publish an awful lot of detailed information on the Exchequer, macroeconomic business and equalities impacts of not only these clauses but all clauses that are debated in Finance Bills. Those assessments are comprehensive and wide-ranging, and therefore we do not think that a detailed review would be useful. With that, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.

[Peter Grant]

I think it was obvious that I did not expect the Government to accept the new clause with joyful acclamation. I deliberately tried to pitch my remarks in a co-operative vein, and it is disappointing that the Minister could not resist a bit of completely unnecessary playground politics. If he wants to look at the respective international standings of the two Governments and the international standing of the two Heads of Government as things stand right now, and if he wants to look at the current standing, credibility and trustworthiness of the two Heads of Government among the ordinary people of England, never mind the ordinary people of Scotland, that is a debate I would be delighted to have with him on another day, but I would have to caution him that it is not a debate that his party wants to get into just now. For the people of Scotland, the outcome of that debate will be seen on Thursday next week. I look forward to that, but I suspect that the Minister’s party is not looking forward to it as enthusiastically as I am. I am sorry that I have had to adopt that tone at the very end of our deliberations.

[The Chair]

Mr Grant, do you wish to push the new clause to a vote?

[Peter Grant]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Jesse Norman]

On a point of order, Dame Angela. I would like to thank you and Sir Gary, Hansard, the Whips, parliamentary private secretaries and officials. I am sure that I speak for those on both sides of the Committee when I thank those who have supported us through the Committee stage. I would particularly like to call out the names of Edwin Ferguson and Sarah Hunt and of our Bill team at the Treasury, Bill manager, Mikael Shirazi, Helena Forrest, Barney Gibb and Sam Shirley. I thank colleagues across this Committee for their commitment to scrutinising and debating the legislation. I am keenly aware, as they will be, that we do so under the picture of William Gladstone and his Cabinet at the time—a very forbidding chancellorial figure. With that in mind, I thank everyone for their contributions, and thank you, Dame Angela, for presiding so ably.

[James Murray]

Further to that point of order, Dame Angela. I would like to put on record my thanks to you for being a very patient Chair on my first time in a Public Bill Committee, following Sir Gary Streeter last week. I also thank the Clerks for helping us to draft amendments, and the wider House authorities for making it possible to hold a Public Bill Committee in these strange circumstances. I would also like to thank all members of the Committee. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead, I particularly thank our Whip—my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington—and my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for Luton North for giving up their time to sit on this Committee.

[Peter Grant]

Further to that point of order, Dame Angela. Although, there are obviously parts of the Bill that I do not agree with, I endorse the Minister’s comments on the work that has been done by his colleagues on the Treasury team and by Hansard and other parliamentary staff, without whom democracy in this place simply would not happen—we should never forget that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central, who was unfortunately not able to be with us today, for her work as the senior SNP Treasury spokesperson. I also thank—this is a name that most Members will not recognise—Scott Taylor from the Scottish National party research team. When people ask me what Westminster researchers do, I say, “Their job is to make it look as if their MPs know what they are talking about.” We may all have different opinions on how effectively they do that, but Scott and his colleagues have certainly done a huge amount of work over the last months.

Finally, I thank the large number of external stakeholders who have engaged fully with us as a third party, and no doubt with other parties as well, in a constructive way. They understood when they put forward things that we simply did not feel we could support, but at the same time they gave us a lot of background information so that our understanding of the likely impact of the Bill was much greater than it would otherwise have been, whether we were able to take their requests on board or not. As I said, although I disagree with parts of the Bill, we should recognise that, overall, it is a better piece of legislation thanks to the contribution that those external bodies have made.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Financial Services

Peter Grant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

I endorse a lot of the comments made by the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden); I found myself agreeing with a great deal of what he was saying.

The Scottish National party welcomes the measures in the regulations, but I certainly cannot share the Minister’s glowing endorsement of the Government’s record on money laundering or, indeed, the even more glowing self-praise that we heard from the Foreign Secretary earlier—or yesterday, as it is now. This is a Government who legislate against money laundering, or in favour of transparency in the world of big business only when the eruption of yet another scandal makes it politically too hot for them to continue to pretend that everything is fine. The Government are packed with hard-line Brexiteers—supporters of Brexit, the timing of which we now know was critical to those who had reason to want to keep British-regulated businesses clear of a tightening of European Union regulation.

The Government showed no hint of embarrassment when the first person to be hit with one of their much-trumpeted unexplained wealth orders turned out to be an east European multimillionaire whose immigration and UK citizenship applications had been fast-tracked purely because of the amount of money they owned—money the source of which was as unexplained and dodgy when they were allowed into the country as it was when the National Crime Agency finally caught up with them. Of course, even now the Government are mired in scandal over who really put up the cash for the spiffing up of the Prime Minister’s flat. Over the weekend, there were persistent claims, which went noticeably unanswered, that the money might originally have come from an unauthorised donor and that, in effect, the money might have been laundered.

There is no indication of what, if anything, the Government are doing to address the fact that seven of the 21 countries on the high-risk list are members of the Commonwealth, and another is trying to join. How can anyone have confidence in the super influence that global Britain is supposed to have if it cannot even fix corruption in its own Commonwealth? It gets worse, because another name on that list is that of the Cayman Islands, a British overseas territory. The Government have at their disposal the constitutional tools to put an end to the Cayman Islands’ grim reputation, but they choose not to use them. In fact, recent events have suggested that the Government would rather use their muscle to prevent the Scottish Government from giving children the full protection of a United Nations convention than use it to free one of their few remaining colonies from dodgy business practices that—who knows?—may well have been learned from former colonial masters in the first place.

There may well be legitimate and honourable reasons why a company that never does any business in the Cayman Islands would choose to have its brass nameplate on a door there, rather than in the United Kingdom, North America or wherever the business is genuinely based, but we are talking about 100,000 company registrations in a place the population of which is lower than that of my constituency. As well as answering the questions from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, will the Minister tell us what he thinks attracts so many British companies to create wholly artificial structures to link them to Cayman Islands? If it is not tax dodging or money laundering, or to evade legitimate laws on business ethics and transparency, what on earth does he think they do it for? If he cannot think of a reason, perhaps he should ask some of his colleagues why they choose to register companies there. If you have the Companies House register and the Register of Members’ Financial Interests open side by side on a computer screen, it does not take very many clicks of a mouse to find some very senior Tories who do exactly that.

As well as welcoming the regulations, the SNP will continue to keep up the pressure on the UK Government to bring in the further measures needed to clean up the entire financial services sector. The SNP can already claim a number of significant successes in forcing the Government to match their rhetoric with action and, for as long as there are MPs from Scotland in this place, we will continue to keep up that pressure.

Finance (No.2) Bill (Second sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clauses 51 to 53 set out the circumstances when plastic packaging tax can be deferred or exempted and when tax paid packaging is eligible for a tax credit. As I explained before, the rationale of the tax is to encourage the use of recycled plastic instead of new material within plastic packaging. To maximise the incentive for businesses to use recycled plastic, the Government, as a general rule, believe it is important to include types of plastic packaging even where it may be challenging to increase the level of recycled plastic. That will encourage further investment in the recycling infrastructure and innovation required to overcome these challenges.

These clauses provide for the deferral of PPT and the provision of tax credits for packaging that is exported. They also exempt packaging used in the immediate packaging of licensed human medicines; aircraft, ship and train stores; and packaging used to transport imported goods. I will go through the rationale for each of these in turn. These and other clauses in the plastic packaging tax legislation use the term “plastic packaging component”. However, for ease, from this point onwards I will use the term “plastic packaging” instead.

Clause 51 sets out that plastic packaging imported into or manufactured in the UK that is intended for export within 12 months is not chargeable. Based on consultation feedback, the clause requires that the export must be made within 12 months of when a plastic packaging component is manufactured or imported. The packaging must always have been intended for export. This relief will not apply to transport packaging used to export goods such as plastic pallets and wrap, given the administrative challenges of tracking and evidencing that this packaging has been exported. Clause 52 provides for exemptions from PPT for certain plastic packaging.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I apologise for my late arrival, Sir Gary; I was held up in another Committee. Could the Minister expand more on the rationale behind exempting plastic packaging that is manufactured for export? The whole problem with plastics is that plastics that are manufactured here end up in the stomachs of animals in the south Atlantic and the south Pacific. Has she considered, for example, exempting only materials being exported to countries where it is known that there is a similar tax system in place when they are imported? I can understand that we do not want a double tax if the plastic is being exported to a country where there is also an import tax, but is she concerned that the environmental impact of the tax will be reduced if companies can manufacture this stuff and then export it anywhere in the world without having to pay the tax?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

The clause sets out requirements relating to the inclusion of a PPT statement on certain invoices and allows for further regulations specifying what the statement must contain. In consultations, stakeholders told us that customers often have influence over the specification and design of plastic packaging. Including the amount of PPT on invoices will help encourage the behavioural shift towards using more recycled plastic. It will also increase the visibility of the tax and show businesses how much more they are paying for their plastic packaging by not switching to using more recycled plastics. The clause assists with the environmental behaviour shift that is sought by the tax, and I therefore recommend that it stands part of the Bill.

[Peter Grant]

I have just a few points on the clause. I can certainly understand the thinking behind it, but I note that it applies when the goods are first supplied—it applies to the person who is liable to pay the tax. Has the Minister considered what happens if there is a chain of supply but the intermediaries do not do anything that makes them liable to pay the tax? My reading of the clause is that the final user—the final customer—does not necessarily get the statement of how much tax has been paid. If the intention is to affect the behaviour of not only the manufacturers but customers, we are missing a trick, in that the customer might not realise how much of the final cost has been covered in the plastic packaging tax.

My second point is very simple. Is it envisaged that the statement of plastic packaging tax would be required to be printed on the face of the invoice, or could it simply be attached as a separate document? It is not clear what the commissioners are likely to put into any regulations. My concern is partly that if it is required to be put on the face of the invoice, that potentially requires quite a lot of changes to software by companies that use accounting software. Alternatively, if it is supplied as a separate document, are there not enforcement difficulties? It could be difficult to establish afterwards that it was not attached, whereas if somebody provides an invoice without accounting for VAT, it is quite clear to anybody that the requirement to give a VAT invoice has not been complied with. Have those two issues been considered by the Government in the precise wording of the clause?

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

The clause sets out the requirement for the PPT statement on certain invoices. The only point I want to make is to urge the Treasury and HMRC to work with businesses to ensure that they understand the requirement and implement it with the least burden possible.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 2)
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), with whom I work very closely on this issue; it demonstrates the best of Parliament that we are able to do so across the House.

I rise to speak in support of amendment 77, which stands in my name and that of members of the all-party group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. Our proposals command support across the House, and I know the Minister will therefore address this issue thoroughly and seriously, not just in his response today but in the work that I know he is doing to bear down on those who enable and support tax avoidance and financial crime. I simply say this to the Minister: he may have reservations about the technicalities of our proposals, but he should at the very least accept the principle that underpins them and say so today.

Big corporations and high net-worth individuals who engage in tax avoidance schemes and financial crime do not dream up these schemes on their own; they are invented and developed by the huge army of tax professionals—accountants, lawyers, banks and advisers—who spend their working life trying to identify loopholes and wheezes. The schemes they devise do not just help but actively encourage people not to pay their rightful contribution through tax to the common purse for the common good.

At present, HMRC may slowly and belatedly catch up, and may deem such schemes unlawful. If it does so, the individuals have to pay up and sometimes face enormous tax demands, but the enablers of tax avoidance mostly get away scot-free; at worst they may lose the fees they earned from setting up the scheme for their clients. Our amendment would hold these enablers to proper account. If advisers and promoters involved in a scheme know that the scheme does not work, they are committing the criminal offence—mentioned by the Minister—of cheating the public revenue. They are breaking the law, so they should be pursued, charged and convicted with a criminal charge.

That does not happen now, and our amendment seeks to make it easier for the enforcement agencies to pursue criminal prosecutions. Not only would they hold the advisers to account, but I am completely convinced that the threat of a criminal prosecution would act as the most effective deterrent and bring to a halt many of the activities of these rogue advisers. It would be the most efficient way of tackling tax avoidance at source. It is a common-sense approach to the problem, and it would be welcomed by all taxpayers, who are so frustrated by paying their tax unquestioningly while seeing others avoid tax or break the law. It would restore confidence in the tax system. It is a good idea, and I hope that when the Minister responds he will say that he shares our view that we need to amend our legislation to make it easier to pursue and prosecute advisers who deliberately promote egregious schemes that are unlawful.

I know from my time chairing the Public Accounts Committee how embedded the culture of avoidance, evasion and financial crime has become in our financial services sector. We saw it plainly with the revelations from HSBC, with the Falciani leaks from its Swiss branch. It was there in the PricewaterhouseCoopers leaks keenly exposing that firm’s activities in Luxembourg. The Panama papers uncovered the shenanigans involving the law firm Mossack Fonseca, while the Paradise papers disclosed the nefarious activities of another law firm, Appleby. While it may no longer be seen as cool to be involved in tax avoidance, the latest leak of documents contained in the FinCEN papers spells out the complicity of major global banks in facilitating and enabling financial crime, from tax avoidance through to fraud and money laundering.

Normal working people, however, often suffer the most. The film tax relief that was exploited ruthlessly by the company Ingenious Media left many facing huge tax demands, though the chief executive, Patrick McKenna, is still lauded through public appointments in the creative sector. The loan charge scheme was promoted vigorously by enablers. They walked away scot-free, but left devastation in their wake. I understand from the all-party parliamentary loan charge group that seven suicides have been reported to the group—people driven to suicide because they were conned by enablers into participating in a scheme that later unravelled. That is truly shocking.

I welcome the consultation that the Government have launched on tackling the promoters of tax avoidance. The all-party parliamentary group will be preparing a response to that consultation. Most advisers, of course, work in an honest and straightforward way, and we do not want to pursue with criminal charges those who make an honest mistake, but there are still individuals, companies and organisations who deliberately and wilfully promote egregious schemes that they know do not work. Such enablers move quickly, they are well resourced and they are well capable of outmanoeuvring HMRC. As soon as one wheeze is uncovered, they move on to the next. Worst of all, they act with impunity, safe in the knowledge that they will escape any real punishment if they are ever caught.

Why do these rogue advisers not get prosecuted? The answer lies in what the Minister said: HMRC has to demonstrate dishonesty to proceed against them and it is virtually impossible to do so. The advisers can always claim that they honestly believed that the scheme would work. We therefore want a new test, which makes criminal prosecutions feasible and practical.

We suggest adopting the test that is in place for the work of the GAAR—the bar for prosecution for those ne’er-do-wells should be just as stringent. It would simply make it possible and practical to take action. HMRC would have to demonstrate not simply that the avoidance scheme was not reasonable; it would have to demonstrate that it was not reasonable for anybody to think that the avoidance was reasonable. Sorry for the complication, but that is a double reasonableness threshold. I assure the Minister that that double reasonableness test is in effect the same as the “beyond reasonable doubt” test that he mentioned in his opening remarks. Of course, it would be easy for enablers to avoid prosecution —they just need to stop promoting or recommending tax avoidance that is so aggressive that they know it will fail.

Our amendment tackles a gross injustice in the system. People are completely fed up with reading endless stories about scurrilous tax avoidance schemes promoted by those working in the financial services sector. The perceived difference in the way that hard-working taxpayers and rich individuals are treated breeds mistrust. We suggest a practical change in the law that would make it possible to pursue the enablers, not because we want to see the courts clogged up with prosecutions against bankers, accountants, lawyers and advisers, but because we think that that is the best way of making those advisers think twice before they promote unlawful schemes. It would deter most of them from trying to cheat the public revenue. I urge the Minister, please, to be bold on the issue, to state today that he will tighten up the law and to give us the assurance that, if he does not like our particular solution, he will come forward in a timely manner with his own proposal.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

I am pleased to speak in this debate and to speak to the amendments and new clauses to which I have added my name and which were detailed earlier.

All the SNP amendments relate to schedule 6, under clause 30. Amendments 70 to 72 and 84 and 85 seek to amend subparagraph (3A) of paragraph 2. Taken together, the paragraph would read:

“Where the condition in subsection (1)(l) or (2) is not met in relation to a body or person at any time, but the body or person expects it to be met at any time, the body or person may allow for the condition to be treated as being met until the body or person is not expected to make expenditure on construction operations exceeding £3 million.”

On the face of it, it does not look like a major change, but the amended wording is more in keeping with the spirit of the existing construction industry scheme. It allows, for example, for a de minimis amount of minor works to be disregarded in the operation of the scheme.

Amendment 73 seeks to remove paragraph 3 from schedule 6. I know that the Minister has spoken against this amendment and amendment 74, but we have seen no convincing argument that this change is necessary just now, and we believe that it would be much better for industry to be allowed to continue with the existing scheme for the current year rather than asking it to change the way of doing things. Let us face it, with its being a major part of our recovery from the covid recession, industry has far more important things to concentrate on.

A similar reasoning applies to amendment 74, which seeks to leave out paragraph 4 from schedule 6. That paragraph relates to the way in which the costs of materials purchased for a construction contract are taken into account for tax purposes. The construction industry has had to meet a number of challenges this year. We do not see how changing the way in which it has to account for tax on purchases by a subcontractor for another subcontractor, for example, during this current year will help. We do not see why it needs to be done just now.

New clause 14 requires the Chancellor to report back to Parliament on the impact that the changes proposed in clause 30 and in schedule 6 have had on key economic indicators. One would think that it would be automatic that, when a Government make changes to the tax system, they would go back a wee while later to see whether the changes have had the desired effect. This Government are perennially hopeless at doing that. We seldom if ever see a published assessment of what impact the new legislation or changes to the tax system had. That makes it much more difficult for MPs and the public to hold the Government to account. Even more importantly, it means that, when mistakes are made—that is when, not if—there is no reliable process to identify that and to put things right.

For this Committee sitting alone the Government have had to table no fewer than 22 amendments in order to correct mistakes or to remove inconsistencies and ambiguity from their own Bill which they themselves commended to the House only last week. We can only hope that they have spotted all the mistakes by now, but surely with such an important piece of legislation it makes sense to ask the Chancellor to report back to us to tell us whether it is working, or whether there have been unintended consequences that need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

New clause 15 again requires the Chancellor to report back to Parliament, but this time on the effectiveness of various anti-tax avoidance measures in clauses 117 to 121, and the follower notice penalties in clause 115. I note that the Opposition have tabled something similar, although a bit more restricted in scope.

We welcome the further measures included in this Bill, but they still do not go nearly far enough. Time and again, it has been pressure from SNP MPs that has forced the Government to take any action at all on the scandalous levels of tax avoidance that they continue to tolerate. We still do not have an overarching and workable general anti-avoidance rule. We have an inadequate system of company registration and regulation that makes it far too easy for companies to hide the truth about who really benefits from the profits that they make on the hard work of citizens of these islands and who is really in control of the company. For example, the SNP has highlighted over and over again the need for legislation to combat the abuses of so-called Scottish Limited Partnerships by money launderers and organised crime. As things stand, almost anybody in the world can set up one or several Scottish Limited Partnerships and then use them to get round even the inadequate regulatory and transparency requirements that apply to other companies.

--- Later in debate ---

The measure in this Bill is very helpful. The key point is that it will stimulate demand, especially in the quieter winter season, and that demand will generate the cash flow that businesses need. It is not a cheap measure—it will cost nearly £5 billion—so it is a huge tax cut but, once we are through this pandemic, the sector will resume its central role in our national life, and generate the revenue and job opportunities that we need.

[Peter Grant [V]]

I seek leave to speak to amendment 64 and new clause 16, which stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. We support the cut in VAT to 5% for the hospitality and tourism sectors; in fact, it was pressure from the Scottish National party that initially forced the Government to accept that measure. However, as with much of the Government’s support for businesses during the past 13 months, it is not enough.

Although there has been a welcome easing of restrictions in all four UK nations—in Scotland, we are particularly looking forward to next Monday, when the most significant easing of restrictions since December will come into effect—it is unlikely, indeed impossible, that the tourism and hospitality sectors will get back to anything like normal immediately. It is impossible that we will be back to normal by the end of September, and it is therefore completely irrational for the Government to arbitrarily decide that the 5% VAT rate should end on 30 September, but that is exactly what they have decided. The SNP did, in fact, table an amendment seeking to extend that date to 31 December, but that amendment was deemed to be outside the scope of this Bill. I accept that ruling, but I still urge the Government to get real, not only about the difficulties that the tourism and hospitality sectors are facing but about how long those difficulties are going to last.

In new clause 16, we are asking for the Chancellor to report back to Parliament on the impacts that the 5% VAT rate has had, and—very importantly—to compare that with what would have happened if it had been extended, as we have asked. We know what the 5% VAT rate is supposed to achieve, supporting businesses in those sectors, so the Government should have no qualms about assessing whether or not they have achieved that. Nor should they have any qualms about having their decision compared on an empirical basis with alternatives that have been put forward by other MPs.

The Minister claimed earlier that it is technically impossible to comply with that new clause because the data just does not exist. I find that frankly astonishing. If the political will is there, the data can surely be made available, and if Parliament decides that it is going to pass into law a requirement for that to happen, the job of the Government is to comply with the will of Parliament.

Amendment 64 asks for a minor, but important, change to the wording of clause 93, dealing with the temporary 12.5% VAT rate. Clearly, as I said earlier, we would have preferred that to remain at 5%, but the Government have rejected that proposal and gone for a 12.5% rate until 31 March 2022, presumably with the full 20% rate coming in after that date.

Clause 93, as currently worded, would allow the Treasury by regulation to bring that date forward, so that the tourism and hospitality sector would go back to paying the full 20% VAT rate sooner than the date that this House has agreed. That is not acceptable. Our amendment would allow the March 2022 deadline to be extended if we found—as we may well find—that the sector was taking longer than expected to recover. The only reason for bringing the date forward would be if, by some miracle, the tourism and hospitality sector recovered quicker than expected. I can see no circumstances in which those businesses will have recovered sufficiently for the increase to 20% to be brought forward earlier than March 2022.

In his summing up, may I invite the Minister to contradict me and to tell me that he thinks that that will be possible—that it will be appropriate to bring forward that date? If he cannot see any circumstances in which it will be right for him to use the power to bring that tax increase forward, he should not be asking us to give him the power in the first place.

One consequence of the quaint way that the British Parliament does its business is that, if we want to support businesses by reducing VAT on corporation tax liabilities, it goes in a Finance Bill, but if we want to reduce the liability of other taxes such as non-domestic rates, it does not. The non-domestic rate system is one of the very few parts of the business taxation system that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government have used that devolved power to ensure that businesses in retail, tourism, hospitality, aviation and newspapers, all of which have been severely hit by covid, will pay no business rates at all during 2021-22. The small business bonus scheme takes around 100,000 businesses out of non-domestic rates altogether and, if the current Scottish Government are re-elected, that will continue for the lifetime of the next Parliament.

In Scotland, we have the lowest business rate poundage in the United Kingdom, the most generous relief schemes and, of course, we have the most progressive income tax system in the whole of the United Kingdom. When we see the benefits that come to the vast majority of people in Scotland from the different approach that our Government have taken using the limited taxation powers at their disposal, I hope the Government will look positively on any request by the new Scottish Government, whoever that might be, to further extend those powers.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate and to expand on the reasons so passionately set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) as to why the SNP will vote against the Bill this evening. The purpose of the Bill is to give legislative effect to the Chancellor’s Budget. That Budget was a regressive Budget. It was an austerity Budget that turned its back on millions of those worst affected by the covid pandemic. It is a Budget that severely damages the interests of my constituents, so it is a Budget, and this is a Finance Bill, that I cannot and will not support.

Austerity is not an economy necessity. It is a political choice. It has been the first-choice response of almost every British Government of every complexion during my adult life, so it is maybe not surprising that so many people seem to have forgotten that there is a different way, a fairer way, and in fact a much more effective way to respond to an economic crisis. All we have to do is to care as much about the millions in these four nations who do not have enough to live on as we care about the lucky handful whose only problem is that they cannot count how many billions they have.

There is no disagreement about the fact that we need to start to repair the economic damage caused by the pandemic and by the measures that had to be taken in response. There are lessons to be learned, but perhaps the most vital lesson of all is that the inequalities that have been deliberately created and deliberately maintained in our society by successive Governments have also made our society as a whole much more vulnerable to the ravages of the disease. We know that the economic costs of covid have fallen much more heavily on the people who could least afford them. To give just one example, the British Retail Consortium did a survey that confirmed what we would probably have expected: during the pandemic, highly-paid people such as Members of Parliament have got better off and now have more savings than we had before, while most of our constituents on low incomes have been using up their savings just to survive, and many of them effectively have no savings left at all.

Presumably, the way we respond to that is to use the powers in the Finance Bill to redress that balance. Well, no—that is not the priority of this Government. In clause 5, we see a multi-year freezing of the income tax basic rate limit and, much more damaging, a freezing of the personal allowance at £12,570. It is not easy to find a way to change an income-based tax system so that we collect more tax but target the impact on people on lower incomes, but that is exactly what the Government propose to do. If it is accepted that the Treasury needs to collect more money in real terms from income tax, we should at the very least make sure that the impact in real terms is equally spread. In fact, the SNP would argue that whenever the time comes to increase taxes, those of us who are lucky enough to be on high incomes should be asked to bear a wee bit more of the pain.

I know that the Government will point to other provisions, such as clause 31 and the one-off uplift in working tax credit. In principle, that is something the SNP supports, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central mentioned, the way that it is implemented could harm some of the very people it is supposed to help. The eligibility criteria are crude, to say the least. It will not be at all easy for recipients to work out for themselves whether they qualify. What assessment have the Government made of the number of payments that they expect to be made in error, and are they seriously then going to chase down the recipients of those erroneous payments as if they had committed some kind of fraud, when in fact they have done absolutely nothing wrong?

I was interested to hear the comments of the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), on freeports. “Freeport” is obviously a buzzword that the focus groups have told the Tories goes down well with the party faithful, so they have decided to invent, or rather reinvent, something that looks like a rehash of 1980s-style enterprise zones but call it a freeport because that sounds like a better term. Leaving aside the terminology, how do the Government know that the provisions in clauses 109 to 111 will create new investment and new jobs, rather than just move investment and jobs that would have happened anyway, as the Committee Chair asked? How will they make sure that those who buy and sell land in a designated freeport area are investing the tax breaks they enjoy in creating jobs on the site, rather than just siphoning the money off into the profit and loss account of an offshore investment trust somewhere?

Almost a third of the Bill’s clauses relate to the plastic packaging tax, and no doubt the Bill Committee will want to spend a proportionate amount of time scrutinising the details, but for now, I draw the Minister’s attention to the National Audit Office report on 12 February this year. The report found that, although the Chancellor in his Budget speech last year was able to tell us how many tonnes of carbon the tax would save,

“the exchequer departments did not set these as measures of success in the Tax Information and Impact Note”.

A previous Tory Government brought in tax information and impact notes in a blaze of publicity, announcing that they would support better parliamentary scrutiny of tax policy, but how can Parliament scrutinise the success of this new tax if the key measure of success announced by the Chancellor does not even appear on the success radar of the Department that has to implement it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central raised the more general point about the woefully inadequate scrutiny that the often massive decisions in Finance Bills receive. I know that the Government will point to the number of minutes, hours, days or weeks that people have spent talking about it in Parliament, but talking about it and reading prepared speeches is not the same as proper scrutiny. For example, in this Bill we can accept, reject or amend clause 32 on the tax statement of payments under the self-employment income support scheme, which is fair enough for those who qualify, but we cannot redress the glaring injustice of the excluded millions who do not qualify at all. We can accept clause 31 or amend it to make it a lot better, to support working people whose income has been affected by covid, but we cannot vote to remove the 30 September cliff-edge when the furlough scheme is removed, because that would be an inadmissible amendment. Although the Bill can be improved in Committee and made slightly more fit for purpose, we are powerless to force the Government to undo some of the deliberately disastrous flaws and omissions in existing support schemes.

It is right that this Budget and this Finance Bill should start the process of rebuilding the economy after covid, but as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, the Government seem hellbent on taking us back to exactly the same unfair, unequal and divided society that we had before. In fact, they will probably succeed in making it even worse than before. Of course, the Tories do not want to talk about the fact that their own analysis shows that the long-term economic damage of the covid pandemic will be less than the damage of the self-inflicted and totally avoidable disaster that is Brexit.

It is an indication of how out of touch the Government are with my constituents, and with the people of Scotland generally, that the Tories, the official Opposition in Scotland, have already surrendered in the Scottish Parliament elections. They are not even pretending that they want to try and form an alternative Government after 6 May. They are delivering glossy six-page leaflets that literally have no policies on them. They are not even pretending that they have anything positive to say or to offer in Scotland—which, after all, is kind of what Scotland has been saying to them since 1955.

The Bill will get its Second Reading tonight, it will get through the Committee and it will become law. Its regressive provisions will be imposed in Scotland against the will of three-quarters of our people, no doubt to great cheers from the socially distanced Government Benches. But let me say this to them: enjoy imposing this Finance Bill on Scotland’s people, because in just over three weeks’ time, those same people will take a decisive step towards making sure that their time for imposing their policies on our country comes to an end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate that this is a Finance Bill and technically it can go to any hour, so the House could be sitting until 11 o’clock or midnight, but I ought to say something to Members who are not in the Chamber but who I hope might be listening. It sometimes seems that Members who are at home and participating virtually do not pay attention to the rest of the debate. If they are listening, let me say to them that there is something a little bit distasteful about those who are sitting at home making very long speeches and keeping the entire operation of the House of Commons going till well into the evening. Everybody has the right to speak on the Finance Bill and it is very important that they do so, but it is generally recognised, and I particularly recognise it today, that that which can be said in 10 minutes can usually be said more effectively in five.

Income Tax

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

A belated happy St David’s Day to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all hon. Members and staff of the House.

The Scottish National party will not oppose these regulations. Applying them to the delayed Euro 2020 finals is clearly an appropriate use of the power that has existed for a number of years to exempt from income tax liabilities anyone who works here for a relatively short time because they play for, coach or are otherwise involved with one of the national squads, or are UEFA-accredited staff and journalists. It is my understanding that this courtesy is often extended by other countries that host major sporting events; indeed, as we have heard, Governments of all the host countries had to sign up to this to take part in the bidding. I suppose we should welcome the fact that on this occasion the Government have actually honoured promises they made to our European neighbours; quite a few businesses in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland wish that promises made to them were worth quite as much.

Clearly, because of covid, the tournament may not be the spectacle it might have been, but I hope that by the summer, the Governments of not only Scotland and the UK but all the qualifying countries have the pandemic sufficiently under control to allow the matches to be played—possibly not in front of full capacity crowds, but certainly with a big enough crowd at each game to give them the atmosphere that Europe’s top footballers clearly deserve. I can see that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is waiting to speak, so let me say to him and his colleagues from Northern Ireland that I am sorry that Northern Ireland did not quite make it through a very difficult qualifying group to make it four UK nations out of four taking part.

Given that it is St David’s day, may I wish Wales the very best of luck with their start to the tournament? I also send my very genuine and sincere good wishes to England, as they strive to finish second to Scotland and qualify on our coattails in group D. Who knows? We might be able to give the world’s media not just an exemption from income tax while they are here, but a truly historic sporting occasion—and not just because Scotland’s men’s football team is at a major tournament, because I can remember when that was quite a common occurrence. We might show the media something that has only ever happened once in history; they might be able to report on Scotland beating England at Twickenham and at Wembley in the same year. Now, that is something that I think we all look forward to in June this year.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As a Welshman, I am not one to dwell on recent sporting victories that took place over the weekend.