Finance Bill

Debate between Wes Streeting and Alison Thewliss

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting & Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

If Government Members want to tell me why spending £900,000 on a plane is more important than feeding children—[Interruption.] All of it is too much. All of it is unnecessary; when there are children in my constituency and constituencies throughout the country not having food to put on the table, money spent on redecorating a plane is a shame that should stain this Government.

As I was saying, the Scottish Government have taken child poverty incredibly seriously. They have set in statute the commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2030, with concrete action in the child poverty delivery plan backed by the £50 million tackling child poverty fund. Child poverty in Scotland had fallen, but it has been on the rise since the Conservatives took over in 2010. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation directly attributes this rise to welfare policy. In addition, the policies outwith the control of the Scottish Government, such as no recourse to public funds, cause significant poverty among people who are working. Constituents come to my office who cannot put food on the table for their children and who are struggling to pay their bills. Some have come to my office several years in a row to apply for the Christmas presents fund that is run in Glasgow, because even though they are working, they are not entitled to the benefits that their neighbours get; two children may sit next to one another in the classroom but one will go without because one family has no recourse to public funds. The Government must rethink this, because we have seen through the coronavirus crisis that people with no recourse to public funds find it more difficult to support themselves through this time.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Lady is right to say that so much of the responsibility and blame for what is happening in Scotland rests on the shoulders of the decisions taken here by the Conservative Government in Westminster, but I cannot resist asking her: given that between 1999 and 2007 Labour was in government in Holyrood and Westminster, are the people of Scotland not better served when there is a Labour Government here and a Labour Government there?

Finance Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Wes Streeting and Alison Thewliss

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 18th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell.

I will reflect on some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Ilford North. The Government down in Westminster are doing such a cracking job of selling the Union that a new Panelbase poll at the start of the month put support for independence at 52%; it had 20% of no voters in 2014 now having swapped to be in favour of independence; and most people wanting to see a vote in the next five years. A great commendation of the UK Government on the job that they are doing is that people in Scotland are regretting at a greater rate than ever before how they voted in 2014.

[Wes Streeting]

Perhaps when the hon. Lady returns to her constituency, she might reassure her constituents who worry about policy making at a UK Government level that, hopefully, we will have a Labour Government again before too long.

[Alison Thewliss]

People can promise things in the never-never—perhaps that will happen, but we do not quite know. But how Scotland ends up getting governed should not be down to whether votes in England sway one way or the other. We would do a far better job of governing ourselves, as many small independent countries around the world do. Many small independent countries are also making a much better fist of dealing with the coronavirus crisis than the UK is—in fact, most countries in the world are, never mind small ones. Look at how well New Zealand has managed the crisis, and how well it has been able to come out of it, under the brilliant leadership of Jacinda Ardern. We have a lot to learn from other countries about how to do things better in so many ways.

We are very supportive of Labour’s new clause 3 and of the complementary new clauses 18 and 21, which I tabled. New clause 18 seeks assessments of the impact of the Bill within a month on various economic variables, comparing situations in which the Treasury ceases or continues its covid-19 support schemes for the next year.

The likely reality is that when the schemes are discontinued, as planned, the economy and people’s living standards will be sent reeling. We know that from the many studies that have been done of people who have taken up the coronavirus job retention scheme—the majority of uptake of the scheme in the hospitality and tourism industries is significant. YouGov polling out yesterday suggested that a huge number of people would lay off their staff if the schemes were withdrawn. The Government need to listen carefully to the experience of people in those sectors on the impact of withdrawing too early.

We feel it is important that that is looked at in the context of the Finance Bill. As everyone has seen, as the Finance Bill progressed from the Budget to where we are now, the world in which we are living changed—changed dramatically—for so many people and their living standards. For the Government to have such a review seems wise.

The schemes covered by new clause 18 are the job retention scheme, the business interruption loan scheme, the bounce-back loan scheme and the self-employed support scheme. We know that the Chancellor has said that he will do “whatever it takes” to protect jobs, but we also know—I am a member of the Treasury Committee, and we have found that from the evidence received from many—that more than 1 million people have fallen through the gaps in the schemes. We need to understand what impact that and the measures in the Finance Bill will have on those groups.

Earlier, the Office for National Statistics revealed that in April the UK’s economy suffered its biggest monthly slump in GDP on record—20.4%—due to the pandemic. We therefore think that it would be wise for the Government to expand the support schemes, rather than winding them down. That is also critical for the devolved nations, which are moving at a slightly different pace, due to the circumstances in which we find ourselves, hence why we want to look at the different nations as well.

In new clause 21, we ask the Government to report on the effects of the Bill in a number of different business sectors. Different sectors will be differently affected. The sectors mentioned in the new clause include leisure, retail, hospitality and tourism, all of which we know from our constituency experiences have been severely hit, with retailers having real problems and many in the leisure sector perhaps falling outwith some of the schemes and finding it very difficult to get started up again. As I mentioned earlier, some businesses in my constituency were unable to access the support for various technical reasons. Financial services, business services, health life/medical services, haulage and logistics and aviation have also been severely impacted. Many bus firms and tour firms are struggling to keep going, which will impact on schools as they return. Many are rural schools and so rely on the transport sector to move pupils around. Those factors need to be considered as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) has spoken a great deal about the impact on the aviation sector, which, in turn, will have a huge impact on the behaviour of BA. The way it is currently treating its staff is absolutely appalling.

We also want to talk about professional sport and oil and gas, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South covered so well earlier. Universities will be hugely impacted by the number and ability of foreign students to come here to work, study and live. Those universities have been in contact with me—indeed, several are based in my constituency and several neighbour my constituency —saying that they are very concerned about their future, which the Government have not really talked about to any great extent. Fairs, too, face problems. I have many show people based in my constituency, and they are also very concerned about the loss of their season and their ability to continue trading, because they do rely on that public-facing role—opening up the funfair to people, taking money and exchanging cash. Without that, they have no income at all. They have very few alternatives. Many may operate things such as snack bar vans, which, again, have not been operating to the same extent as previously.

We are keen to press the Government on these things and to understand the impact of what has been proposed here and to see what schemes are running. I am very happy to move these new clauses in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

We had the debate on child poverty earlier in this debate, and it is important that the Government are held to account for the measures in the Bill and their impact on child poverty. They affect many of my constituents and, as others have said, it should not take a footballer to tell the Government that their child poverty measures are inadequate. Public sector reporting duties on sustainable development goals and the importance of action to tackle poverty were mentioned earlier, and the Government have an obligation to deal with that. They are failing so many of our constituents all the time when it comes to child poverty, so it is important that we use all the measures that we can possibly can. I appreciate that the measures to amend the Finance Bill are limited by the way in which the Bill is put through the House, but it is incredibly important that the Government are held to account. They could match the Scottish Government’s tackling child poverty delivery plan 2018-22, which has at its heart the Scottish child payment for low-income families for children under six. We are prioritising child poverty in Scotland because we know how important it is for the life chances of every young person in Scotland.

Without the measures to hold the UK Government to account on child poverty, we fail in the measures that we do not have control of in Scotland. The vast majority of the social security budget and measures are controlled from Westminster, as is the vast majority of tax and spend. We will do everything that we can within our power to mitigate that. The UK Government deserve to be held to account for their record, which is in many respects appalling.

[Wes Streeting]

I rise to speak to new clause 23 that I tabled with my hon. Friends and to support new clause 16. I do not want to disrupt the cross-party consensus among Opposition parties on this particular issue, but I will point out that almost one in four—230,000—of Scotland’s children are officially recognised as living in poverty. That figure is from the Child Poverty Action Group, who used Scottish Government data. It observed:

“In the absence of significant policy change, this figure is likely to increase in the coming years, with Scottish Government forecasts indicating that it will reach 38% by 2030/31. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation suggests the Scottish child poverty rate will be 29% by 2023-24—the highest rate in over twenty years.”

Let us hope that the Scottish Government’s child poverty strategy is a success—children are counting on it. Of course, the Scottish Government—here represented by the Scottish National party—are right to point to some of the impacts of UK Government policy on poverty in Scotland, and we would support them in that, but we also urge them to use their powers under the existing devolution settlement, taking responsibility for the fact that significant numbers of children in Scotland live in poverty. That is on the watch of an SNP Government who have been in power for a significant period now. I hope that next years’ Scottish parliamentary elections shake out some of the complacency that we see in Nicola Sturgeon’s Government.

[Alison Thewliss]

I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Also, bodies such as Sheffield Hallam University have pointed to the fact that Scotland mitigated the bedroom tax. Child poverty in Scotland has been mitigated because of such actions—where we can take action, we have taken action—while children in his constituency still have to face the bedroom tax.

[Wes Streeting]

Children in my constituency suffer under a Conservative Government—the hon. Lady will get no disagreement from me on that. Of course, where the Scottish Government take steps to mitigate the impact of Westminster Government decisions, I have no doubt at all that they will receive cross-party support from my Scottish Labour colleagues, but the point about the Scottish Government accepting responsibility for what happens to people in Scotland has to be a feature of the debate. One of the reasons why I admire Nicola Sturgeon as a politician and political leader is the skilful way in which she always manages so eloquently to pass the buck down to London.

Finance Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Wes Streeting and Alison Thewliss

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 18th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here for what is likely to be our final day of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. It is important to remember that the reason why we are discussing clause 99 is in no small part, as the Minister alluded to, due to the Windrush compensation scheme, which is the culmination and inevitable consequence of the appalling circumstances of the aggressive and deeply destructive hostile environment pursued by the Government over the course of the past 10 years. As Wendy Williams said in her review, the Windrush scandal, which saw so many people’s lives completely disrupted, and in many cases ruined, was the result of “foreseeable and avoidable” systematic operational failings, so it is right that the Windrush compensation scheme was established. The House has considered those issues many times.

It is a source of deep regret, to put it mildly, that fewer than one in 20 people who have made claims under the Windrush compensation scheme have been paid so far. I want to take the opportunity, as we are discussing clause 99, to restate again our view that the Government must act much more quickly. People are owed that compensation, although the financial compensation will never fully compensate for the emotional and mental trauma that British citizens suffered as a result of the Windrush scandal.

It is appalling that we have added insult to injury by moving so slowly on compensation claims, even where they have been made. Of course, as the Minister outlined, the clause improves conditions for people accessing such schemes, whether the Windrush compensation scheme or the troubles permanent disablement payment scheme, so we have no objection to the clause.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is regrettable that so many people are still waiting for their money through the Windrush compensation scheme. I urge the Minister to do everything he can to make sure that the money gets out the door.

It is useful that the clause allows for future schemes so that there will, hopefully, be fewer delays and less confusion for people in future about the impact of those schemes. We want to make sure that, where wrongs have been done, people can get the money that they are entitled to in compensation as swiftly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

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

My understanding was that we were breaking after the previous clause, so I will scramble to find my notes. We think it is important to look at the geographical impact of the Bill. I support the new clause tabled by Plaid Cymru, which has suggested that we have a report assessing the

“differential geographical effects, broken down by nation and NUTS 1 statistical region, of the changes made by sections…of this Act.”

What is lacking in this House—I have said this before and I have no hesitation in returning to it—are real mechanisms to explore how effective the measures in the Finance Bill are in reality. My colleagues and I have supported work on a Budget Committee, which has been before the Procedure Committee to look at it as well. We do not understand the effectiveness of the policies and the ideas that the Government have, so we end up with things being proposed in Bills that turn out to be completely ineffective or we find out that they have differential effects from what the Government expected, so they have to come back later to amend things and try to fix their mistakes.

We feel that requiring the Government to consider the geographical effects of the changes to the reliefs, including research and development expenditure credit, would give a better understanding of how effective they are across the different regions and nations and of whether those incentives actually contribute to the continuing inequalities that we see across the UK. We think this is an issue of real importance to Scotland and to Wales for the measures where we do not necessarily have particular control ourselves and where the devolved nations do not have competence. It is important to understand what the Government are about with the legislation they are proposing as well as its impact, and whether the measures are truly seen to be effective.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central makes a reasonable case—that will be a running theme throughout a number of new clauses, not least when we turn to new clause 3 in the afternoon session. I will make the points I want to make about the importance of reviewing the geographical impact of measures in the Finance Bill at that point, but I concur with her remarks.

Finance Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Wes Streeting and Alison Thewliss

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Wes Streeting]

The Minister asked us to watch this space. We will certainly do that and wait to see how discussions progress. We look forward to seeing the details of future arrangements in the not-too-distant future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94

International trade disputes

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 94, page 76, line 33, at end insert—

“(2) The Government must lay before the House of Commons by 9 September 2020 a statement of the conditions under which it would consider it appropriate to vary rates of import duty under this Section.”

This amendment would require the Government to state the conditions under which it would consider it appropriate to vary rates of import duty in an international trade dispute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

The amendments seek to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy being applied retrospectively, and by limiting that preference only to taxes that became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill, which is 1 December 2020. In the current context, that is particularly important. With firms increasingly running the risk of insolvency, it really is unfair to give HMRC a queue jump to recoup lost funds, when other businesses and individuals in the real economy may be well out of pocket.

The plan is to grant HMRC preferential status in insolvency proceedings from December 2020, and measures will make directors personally liable for a company’s tax liabilities where HMRC considers that avoidance or evasion is taking place or where there is evidence of phoenixes in the tax abuse using company insolvencies. I understand that the insolvency and restructuring trade body R3 is very concerned about the prospect of the policy. It feels very strongly that introducing such a policy would damage business lending and impede business rescue. UK Finance has suggested that the measure could hit lending to small firms by over £1 billion.

When I made representations in the Chamber on Second Reading, I explained that the policy is incredibly problematic. On the issue of phoenixism, R3 has suggested that the policy could lead to blameless shareholders, lenders, businesses and rescue professionals being made liable for the tax avoidance activities of rogue directors. What do Ministers intend to do to protect those who are innocent in the system from becoming liable under the proposals?

As well as having a detrimental impact on business and economic growth, restricted lending will make it harder to rescue businesses, increasing the knock-on effect of one business’s insolvency on other businesses and individuals further down the line. Business investment, returns to creditors and confidence in the UK’s corporate framework all stand to be damaged as a result. Ministers really need to give us a bit more detail about why they feel the policy is necessary.

Although the measure on tax abuse using company insolvencies can be mitigated through accurate legislative drafting and detailed guidance from HMRC, the SNP feels strongly that the policy to grant HMRC preferential creditor status should be withdrawn in its entirety. It is an introduction that could well prove a hammer blow to business rescue money across the UK, at exactly the same time as the Government are seeking to level up the economy and support businesses as they try to make their way through these difficult days. We all know of businesses in our constituencies that are really struggling and might not make it further than a couple of months ahead. Knowing that the policy is being introduced could have a detrimental effect on those who are supporting such businesses and on lenders.

In addition to scrapping the clause, the SNP believes that the UK Government must urgently introduce a comprehensive financial package to ensure a strong economic recovery, protect jobs and prevent new businesses from going under. With dire warnings emerging that up to half the loans issued under the bounce-back loan scheme are at risk of not being paid back, and with businesses defaulting on payments due to financial difficulties, it is vital that the Government introduce strengthened and tailored financial support urgently. The Treasury must heed the calls and turn its bounce-back loan scheme into grants for those who require them. It should write off debts for businesses that are facing increased hardship to ensure that they can survive in the long term and that jobs are protected wherever possible.

Many businesses are struggling to stay afloat during these challenging times, and despite the extensive financial support that has been provided by the Government, which we do not dispute, loans will not be the answer for every business. For many businesses, it is not income deferred, but income lost completely. For example, hospitality and tourism businesses will not be able to recoup that money, and loans will just put them further into debt.

It is important that the Government look at this matter very carefully and take on board the very substantial concerns that R3 has raised about the proposed policy, hence why we have tabled so many amendments. I would be grateful if the ministerial team could tell us exactly why this change is required and why it has been brought about.

[Wes Streeting]

I must confess that I come to this clause with a slightly different set of questions for Ministers to respond to. There is no doubt that in the current climate, the risk of insolvency to businesses is much greater, and it is right that the Government do all they can to stop preventable collapses, to safeguard jobs and to ensure that the UK is well positioned for the economic recovery that we hope will follow in short order, with the aim of making this recession as short and shallow as possible.

That is why my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the shadow Minister for business and consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), were prepared to work closely with their opposite numbers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to expedite through the House of Commons the recent Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill.

Turning to clause 95, the question I wish to pose to Ministers is why HMRC is only a secondary preferential creditor. HMRC will remain an unsecured creditor for the taxes that the bankrupt businesses owed, and we have had strong representations for HMRC to be a preferred creditor across the board, to ensure certainty and to recognise the fact that HMRC contributes, through tax collection and maintenance of general rules, to the general operating environment from which all businesses benefit.

Although we have heard that the risk exists that businesses may lose out as a result of HMRC having greater preferential status in the process of recovering money, it does not necessarily follow that the businesses that would lose out are those that most of us would have in mind as being of greatest concern, such as small to medium-sized enterprises. When a business becomes insolvent, bank loans need to be paid off first; unpaid bills to SMEs would have a much lower priority and be less likely to be paid off anyway.

I recognise the concerns expressed by UK Finance. They are concerns I heard in my previous life on the Treasury Committee, and I am always open to talking to colleagues at UK Finance and across the across the banking industry. However, they have to go somewhat further to make a more convincing case than they have outlined. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why HMRC is only a secondary preferential creditor and why, on this occasion, the Treasury has not gone further.

To respond to the lobbying from the financial services industry, I would say that it was ever thus—when measures like are brought forward, it says that the sky will fall in and business lending will stop. There are challenges with business lending in this country, but it is stretching the imagination somewhat to say that such challenges will be presented by this modest clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

It is always the case that when a new measure is introduced, criticism can be made of it simply because it had not existed previously. In this case, it really is a reflection of the Treasury’s failure to clamp down effectively on the abuse of the system and the people trying to avoid and evade their taxes. Despite the Government’s previous efforts to impose greater accountability for tax avoidance and evasion, there are still too many holes in the system, but I welcome the fact that clause 97 and the schedule will go some way to addressing that.

What is the threshold of responsibility for the conduct? When will HMRC consider the serious possibility that the tax liability might not be paid? At what stage will HMRC conclude that there is likely to be a tax liability arising from the avoidance? Might the Treasury go further, for example, by asking HMRC to report on how much money is lost by companies participating in or promoting tax avoidance schemes and then becoming insolvent before HMRC can counter the schemes and collect the money owed? Following on from that, how much money would be collected if those companies’ directors, participators and associated persons were made jointly and severally liable?

[Alison Thewliss]

I want to comment briefly on the huge gap that exists within Companies House as part of this process. If we go after companies and directors that are involved in phoenixing, why can that not be stopped at source when those companies are registered at Companies House? Why is there no link to the Government’s Verify scheme for those who wish to register companies there? Companies House is obliged only to register the information, not to check whether any of the information is accurate, correct or related to any other kind of activity. It is not involved in anti-money laundering obligations, but it really should be. Will the Minister look carefully at the question of Companies House? That could be a key part of preventing phoenixing in the first place. For example, I have a friend who employed a builder to do work on his house for his disabled son. The builder went bust and phoenixed, as he has done on several occasions. My friend is out of pocket, and that company continues to trade. It is employing sub-contractors who lost out last time because there is nobody else to hire them in that small community. There needs to be a stop on those types of people and behaviours, and I urge the Minister to consider ensuring that Companies House is a big part of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

As the Financial Secretary outlined, this clause is designed to tweak the system. Therein lies my criticism and my concern. The challenges we face when it comes to tax avoidance and abuse have been well documented during this Committee in relation to the loan charge. Even where Government have sought to clamp down on avoidance and HMRC has put in place controversial but rigorous arrangements, there continue to be, to this day, companies and promoters that tout schemes that are patently against the spirit and letter of the law. HMRC has made it clear that such schemes do not work, but those companies and promoters are still at it.

The most recent examples I have seen are of umbrella companies targeting public sector workers in the NHS. Rather than just tweaking, Ministers should be trying to give the general anti-abuse rule more bite. For example, they could extend the general anti-abuse penalty rules to apply a 100% penalty for any tax avoidance scheme that fails the GAAR or, more likely, fails for some other reason, but would have failed the GAAR as well. They could prevent operators of avoidance schemes simply running away from their liabilities and victims, making directors, shareholders and other associated persons jointly liable for the new GAAR penalty, as I alluded to in the previous discussion.

Umbrella companies create a unique opportunity to flog tax avoidance schemes to low-paid workers. We see that exploitation taking place. We could counter that by making umbrella company directors and associated persons jointly liable for unpaid PAYE, national insurance and VAT. We should make the promoters, scheme designers and independent financial advisers jointly liable for unpaid tax and penalties from a failed scheme, with a safe harbour designed to protect people acting in good faith. For example that could be where a promoter followed specific tax advice from a regulated adviser, where factual assumptions in advice were reasonable or where advice was shared with scheme participants; the list goes on. There are reasonable exemptions, or reasonable assessments could be made, where people are acting in good faith, but we still see far too many examples of people designing or promoting schemes in the full knowledge that they will make a quick buck but will not pay the consequences.

As we have seen, the Government and HMRC are trying to clamp down. When they catch up with people who have followed advice, often in ignorance of tax rules and in the belief that they were following good, independent financial advice, the bite really hurts. Why are we not going after the scheme promoters much more aggressively? Despite all the controversy—the headlines generated off the back of the loan charge, the debates in Parliament, inquiries and grillings before the Treasury Committee—we still have not got to the heart of the issue.

In my opinion, and that of many people following our proceedings, the people who design, contrive and promote such schemes are still not paying the price for giving bad advice to their customers, who believe they are following good advice and the law. We are not going to quibble about clause 98 and the tidy up it is doing, but I am disappointed by the lack of aambition. The Treasury has to be much more aggressive with the promoters than it is currently.

[Alison Thewliss]

In new clause 12, we mention the issue of Scottish limited partnerships. I make no apology for doing so, as they are still a problem. We only need to look at the ongoing campaign journalism by Richard Smith and David Leask on this issue to know that Scottish limited partnerships are being used in nefarious ways to move money and goods around the world. They have been involved in war crimes and all kinds of things. The loopholes existing in Scottish limited partnerships and Companies House must be closed by the Government. They are harming not only individuals who suffer the effects of these crimes, but Scotland’s reputation. They are called Scottish limited partnerships, but Scotland really has no part in it; they are an historic arrangement, but they are governed here.

There are still people not doing the simplest things such as registering persons of significant control. The answer to my recent parliamentary question suggested that 948 companies have still not registered a person of significant control. That is dramatically down from where it was, but it tells me that people are using other means to hide their money, rather than going through Scottish limited partnerships, and that no Government fines have been levied on the 948 companies that have not registered a person of significant control. That is money that the Government could have in their pocket. They are deciding that they do not want to pursue that for their own reasons. It really does stick in my craw that this is a continual issue: I have to raise it on the Finance Bill and the Scottish National party has to raise it in this House.

We are also concerned about the tax gap. The tweaks being made here are not really going to change that significant gap. In June 2019, HMRC published revised estimates, which put the tax gap at £35 billion for 2017-18, representing 5.6% of total tax liabilities. The Minister, no doubt, will say that the tax gap has fallen—it has—but that does not disguise the fact that it still exists, and that tax is money that could be coming into the revenues. It could be supporting businesses and individuals across the country and we could be abolishing policies such as the two-child limit, because the money would be there in the Government’s bank account. The Government could use that money rather than not collecting it. I could go into great detail, which I have here, about all the anti-avoidance mechanisms that have happened. I am sure other hon. Members are as warm as I am and would like to get some fresh air, so I will skip that in the interest of the patience of all colleagues.

We do need workable general anti-avoidance rules. They must tackle tax avoidance in all its forms. They must not exempt existing established abuse from action being taken. They must include international tax abuse within their scope. They must give the right to the tax authority to take action against tax avoidance, defined in an objective fashion capable of being numerically assessed, without the consent of the unelected authority. They must increase the burden of proof on this issue on to the taxpayer.

In 2014, the coalition Government announced the introduction of a system of follower notices and accelerated payment notices. In cases where someone is in dispute over their assessment, HMRC may issue a follower notice if this arises from the use of an avoidance scheme that is the same or similar to arrangements that HMRC has successfully challenged in court. In July 2017, HMRC reported that it issued over 75,000 such notices worth in excess of £7 billion and managed to collect nearly £4 billion. That is still a significant gap of £3 billion. HMRC must be able to collect the taxes it is due in real time instead of waiting for those judicial decisions.

With Scottish limited partnerships, the extent of the abuse of the current system is laid bare in the Global Witness report “Getting the UK’s house in order”, which highlights the deficiencies at Companies House that have been going on for many years. This needs to be dealt with soon. Reviews have been carried out, things have been talked about, but there has not really been any action. It makes no sense to me that we have such a system but do not allow it to catch the people it should be catching.

I sat on the pre-legislative Joint Committee for the Registration of Overseas Entities Bill in the last Parliament. That Bill seems to have disappeared completely. It would help to tackle some of the money laundering that goes on with property registered in the UK. People across the country, particularly in many London boroughs, see blocks of flats with nobody living in them. People could live in those flats. They are being used for money laundering and moving money about. We need to bring that Bill back and ensure those people are held to account. We should close these loopholes in the system and ensure that the tax that is due is collected for the benefit of all of us.

Finance Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Wes Streeting and Alison Thewliss

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I take what the Minister says about the measure affecting relatively few businesses at the moment, but as this develops, that might not remain the case. There is a certain irony in the EU providing mechanisms for simplifying and harmonising these rules and trading across the EU—people moving their goods around the place—when the UK stands to come out of the EU and lose some of those benefits for businesses in all our constituencies.

There is an irony as well that the Government have decided to adopt these new rules. I am sure the Brexiteers in the room are no less keen on being rule takers, but that seems to be what the Government are doing in this case. We want to see as much harmonisation and simplification for businesses, because that is to their benefit. That is why we think it is important to stay in the EU in the first place.

Figures from the Scottish Government suggest that Scottish GDP could be 1.1% lower after two years, on the current cumulative loss of economic activity from leaving the EU, and up to £3 billion over those two years, on top of the devastating effects of the coronavirus outbreak. There will be an impact without having a free trade deal or an extension, at least for Scotland’s agriculture, fisheries and manufacturing sectors.

We want to see a comprehensive assessment of how all the sectors listed in the amendment will be affected—leisure, retail, hospitality, tourism, financial services, business services, health, life and medical services, logistics, aviation, transport, professional sport, oil and gas, universities—because they could all be affected by this clause. It would be wise for the Government to look at the impact of what they are proposing. It is always wise for the Government to look at the impact of their proposals on anything, I suppose, and we encourage them to do that.

Because the measure is retrospective, will the Minister say what notifications have gone out to business that may be affected and what guidance has been given? He said that companies can opt to use these rules or not. How does that work, and how does the guidance ensure that people know what they have to carry out, whether they decide to use the rules or not? It sounds quite confusing from what the Minister said. Finally, because he did not make it clear, will he say what happens to these measures after the transition period?

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Let me begin by picking up on a point made by the Member for Glasgow Central about the provenance of clause 78. As we heard from the Financial Secretary, the clause transposes into UK law an EU directive that provides for simplified VAT treatment of call-off stock.

To begin, it is tempting to make the same point, and I know that repetition is not a novelty. Let me put it this way: it is very welcome to hear from the Treasury that divergence from EU rules and regulations is not considered by the Government to be an end in and of itself. I was curious last night, as I walked past the Annunciator in the Tea Room, to see the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) making a lengthy speech on a fairly straightforward statutory instrument on electricity. I reviewed his speech this morning in Hansard, because it piqued my curiosity, and I received in passing from my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) a precis of the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. It seems that a number of Conservative Members consider divergence from EU rules and regulations to be an aim in and of itself. Regardless of the merits of the case and the merits of continued co-operation, it is clear that, for a section of the House, there is a virtue in divergence.

I am glad that the Treasury does not share that view, although of course the Treasury looks at the numbers. We may not have had an impassioned exposition from the Financial Secretary of the arguments in favour of this particular alignment with EU rules and regulations, but what we did hear was a very clear argument from Her Majesty’s Treasury that, even having left the European Union, there are still benefits to be found for UK businesses from continued alignment, co-operation, simplification, axing bureaucracy and making things simpler.

I hope that that common-sense approach to our future relationship with the European Union prevails. As much as those of us who campaigned in a different direction in the referendum accept the result and the outcome, and accept that this is a settled political question, it is in all our interests and in our national interest that we maintain a future relationship with the European Union that is based on co-operation, where that is in the interest of our own country.

I turn to the specifics of clause 78. The Financial Secretary’s speech seemed to me to address some of the concerns expressed by businesses and chartered tax advisers, but I will raise them for the sake of clarity. Writing in Taxation, Angela Lang-Horgan, a German and British chartered tax adviser and lawyer, said:

“If businesses have continued to operate under the old simplification rule after 31 December 2019, VAT returns must be corrected once the new legislation is in place. This will add additional confusion to the situation. So far, HMRC has not indicated whether it would apply a soft-landing period. There is no transition period either because under EU law the UK was obliged to introduce the changes from the beginning of this year.”

Could I get some clarity from the Financial Secretary on those points? Will HMRC provide a soft landing period for the implementation of the new rules, or is a soft landing period not even necessary? If I understood him correctly—I may have misunderstood, in which case he will clarify—it seems that there is a degree of flexibility and choice on the part of businesses over whether to adopt this approach. Some clarity in direct response to the concern expressed by Angela Lang-Horgan would be welcome.

What efforts have the UK Government made to communicate with affected businesses in anticipation of the rules, which are effectively already in place? It is worth saying, although it is a mild digression from clause 78, that concern has been expressed—particularly by colleagues in the shadow Business team—that the Government are not communicating with businesses in a timely way with respect to changes in Government policy and their impact on businesses. I think that for some time there has been a cultural problem in government of not giving businesses long enough to anticipate and adjust to new rules; I wonder whether in this case that communication has been a bit more proactive.

The explanatory notes state that

“businesses could structure transactions to remain outside the scope of the new rules if businesses found them onerous.”

What proportion of businesses are expected to exercise that discretionary power?

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Wes Streeting and Alison Thewliss

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 4th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, not least as a parliamentary neighbour.

As the Financial Secretary has outlined, this is the first of a number of clauses related to one of the most politically contentious issues—certainly across the House—in the Bill. By way of introduction, it would be helpful if I set out the Labour party’s position on the loan charge overall and on how we intend to approach the clauses and amendments this afternoon.

It will come as no surprise to any Member of this House that the Labour party takes a dim view of tax avoidance. We believe that tax is the price we pay for a civilised society, that it is important that all of us—individuals, organisations and businesses—pay our fair share of tax, and that when people contrive to avoid their tax, they rob and short-change all of us of the revenues needed for the state to do the essential things it needs to do, whether that is keeping our country and our borders safe or providing the public services on which all of us rely.

Turning to the loan charge specifically, we have not opposed the Government’s changes, as we recognise their general approach to clamping down on tax avoidance schemes in this way. What I want to do with this clause and those we will discuss later this afternoon is to give an airing to many of the detailed and contentious issues that have been raised by Members of all parties right across the House.

The all-party loan charge group has more than 200 members, drawn from parties right across the Chamber. When we come to the later stages of the Bill on Floor of the House, Members will no doubt want to put forward amendments and push the Government to go further in some respects. It is therefore important in our proceedings here in Committee that we delve as deeply as possible into these issues, so that all Members can understand the Government’s thinking and the way in which policy evolved and then consider whether it would be appropriate to bring forward further changes and what those changes might be.

Let me turn now to clause 14. As we have heard from the Financial Secretary, these changes are made in response to Sir Amyas Morse’s independent review into the design and implementation of the loan charge. It was commissioned by the Government, but it is fair to say on behalf of Members across the House not only that the Government appreciate the work Sir Amyas Morse did—it is a thorough piece of work—but that we thank him too. He has done a great service to Parliament and to the wider public debate.

The Financial Secretary mentioned that the Government have accepted all but one of the recommendations from the review and, at some point this afternoon, he should elaborate further on the particular recommendation that the Government have chosen not to accept and implement and explain why.

Here, of course, we are looking specifically at the amendment to the date from which disguised remuneration loans are taxed under the loan charge from 6 April 1999 to 9 December 2010. The 2019 loan charge justified looking back to 1999 by saying that the Government and HMRC had always said that the schemes did not work, but Sir Amyas found that this was not the case before the 2011 legislation. Approximately 40% of the pre-2011 tax years in scope of the loan charge did not even have an investigation into them opened up by HMRC. Even if HMRC had made its position clearer, taxpayers are entitled to rely on the law as interpreted by the courts, and, clearly, legal proceedings have had a bearing on the Government’s considerations.

We will return to HMRC across the afternoon, but this is probably an appropriate time to say two things in relation to it. First, I place on record my thanks and the thanks of the official Opposition to all the staff and leadership at HMRC for the difficult work that they are doing overall at the moment on all our behalves, in the extraordinary circumstances we are all living through. Secondly, let us not forget that HMRC also has a slightly technical and complicated piece of work going on in the background, by which I mean the implementation of Brexit. In normal times, the demands placed on the Revenue are significant, but these are extraordinary times with unique challenges. I want to make that really clear up front, not least because I am about to criticise HMRC.

I must say, having served on the Treasury Committee in the previous Parliament and in the 2015 Parliament, that my discussions with HMRC in relation to the loan charge did not fill me with a great deal of confidence about the way in which it approached this issue over a great many years.

On the controversy generated around the issue of retrospection, where charges are being applied retrospectively, and why that is a really difficult principle and challenge for Members to accept, we in this House, whichever party we represent, do not like the idea of retrospective legislation. We do not like the idea that decisions—certainly levies or charges—apply retrospectively.

HMRC would have given the Government a much easier ride if it had done its job more thoroughly in terms of looking closely at individuals’ tax affairs over many years. One of the things that shocked me most, both as a constituency MP looking at my loan charge casework and as a member of the Treasury Committee, was that those individuals were filing their tax returns over many years. HMRC has said for a great many years that it has considered disguised remuneration schemes such as those covered by the loan charge, and specifically those covered by the loan charge, to be unlawful and contrived schemes, yet, in so many cases, no enforcement action was taken. People were happily sending in their tax return at the end of the tax year, not hearing anything further and assuming that that was good news: “If HMRC has looked at it and considered the tax return, then it must be fine.” Clearly, that is not the case.

I really hope that Ministers have properly dragged officials over the coals—not literally, of course, but metaphorically. In terms of the political controversy, the pain of a lot of victims—in a lot of cases there are victims of the loan charge, as well as people who sought to ruthlessly exploit it, not least the promoters, and there are a lot of people in our constituency casework who I would consider to be victims of the loan charge—would not have taken place if the tax inspectors had done their job more thoroughly and picked up on this activity earlier.

Constituents at my advice surgeries on Friday afternoons, many of whom have been in serious financial distress, have told a story familiar to Members across the House: “My circumstances were unusual. I am not a tax expert, but I took professional tax advice and made arrangements thinking that they were within the law.” The point is that, had HMRC picked up on some of these issues earlier, some of those constituents would have corrected their tax affairs much earlier, they would not have been in this position, and this debate on clause 14—on when the loan charge should take effect—would have been rather more redundant. None the less, we are in the position this afternoon where the date has been settled on as a result of the work not just of the courts, but of Sir Amyas himself in the report. We therefore support these clauses.

I would like the Minister, when he replies on this clause, to touch on a few issues. First, I would like him to say something about the discrepancy between the action being taken on taxpayers and on enablers of tax avoidance. That has been another significant controversy. It is not just the case that people have been scouring the internet in search of ways to minimise their tax liabilities. A number of promoters have been engaged in the promotion of aggressive tax avoidance schemes and have put their clients in an invidious position. I am sure I speak for people across the House in saying that we need tougher action against those promoters, who do a real disservice to the wider profession of financial service advisers. I do not believe, despite the reassurances we have been given by Ministers during successive rounds of parliamentary debate on this issue, or by HMRC in hearings of the Treasury Committee, that the action matches the rhetoric.

I would like the Minister to say more about what action is being taken against the promoters of these schemes.

As the Minister will be aware, the all-party parliamentary group is dissatisfied with the date set out in the Bill. Its report on Sir Amyas’s report picked up on some of the expert views that Sir Amyas drew on in setting out his conclusions. As set out on page 28 of the APPG’s “Report on the Morse Review into the Loan Charge” of March 2020, a number of experts were consulted during the review and asked the simple question of whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that

“schemes entered into on or after 9th December 2010 would clearly generate an income tax consequence.”

Of the 14 or so experts listed on page 30 of the APPG report, a number did not comment, but—as the Minister and his officials will see when they review this, if they have not already done so—a number of those tax advisers disagreed with the statement.

The APPG cites that point in support of its view that the retrospective application of the loan charge is still going back too far. Given we are likely to return to this issue at later stages of the Bill, it would be helpful for all Members of the House—those who are APPG members and those who are not, but who may at some point be asked to express their view in a Division of the House—if the Minister responded to the point about how the date was arrived at, and whether there was a clear and consistent view or whether some of the arguments about retrospection are either highly relevant or redundant.

As the Minister explained in his introductory remarks, clause 14 enacts a recommendation of Sir Amyas’s report that rights a wrong. The Opposition will certainly not oppose the Government doing the right thing after a thorough review of the evidence and the judgments of the courts.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I agree with much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Ilford North. The SNP believe, fundamentally, that people should pay the tax that they owe, but it is clear from the evidence put to the all-party parliamentary group and in various reports that HMRC’s implementation has not involved appropriate communication with affected individuals. We believe that a review is in order to ensure that nobody is made homeless or bankrupt as a result of the loan charge.

I would also ask what consideration the Government have given to people’s ability to pay due to coronavirus, which may change people’s circumstances and their ability to repay. What consideration has HMRC given to those circumstances and how they might affect somebody’s ability to pay? It certainly will be beneficial to HMRC to get the money at some point, but if there is a strict time limit, within which people just cannot pay because they do not have the money and need to put food on the table, that needs to be taken into consideration.

It is something of a scandal that tax professionals advised clients to use these loopholes. There needs to be a further review into the advice given by those professionals and some comeback on the promoters of the schemes, who have clearly encouraged people to take them up. Individuals may have gone into them with their eyes open or their eyes closed, but the promoters of the schemes almost certainly knew what they were doing, what they were advising and what their intention was. We should go after those people aggressively, to ensure that they are not only held accountable for what they have done in the past, but prevented and disincentivised from coming up with similar loophole schemes in future. The very nature of our complex tax system means that the people out there who can benefit from those loopholes will always seek to find them. If we can send a clear message that that is unacceptable and there are consequences for doing so, that is worth considering.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) tabled early-day motion 296 welcoming the publication of Sir Amyas Morse’s loan charge review, the UK Government’s amendments to the relevant legislation through the Finance Bill such that loans made before 2010 will no longer be subject to the loan charge, and delaying the self-assessment deadline until 30 September 2020. The initial analysis suggests that more than 30,000 individuals will benefit from these and related measures, but we still believe that a pause in the policy is necessary before continuing to provide a report, assuring Members that HMRC is working constructively with those seeking a reasonable repayment plan—one that recoups the unpaid tax while avoiding the unacceptable risks of bankruptcy and homelessness. If HMRC is not in a position to deliver that, an independent arbitration mechanism should be used to achieve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank the Minister for his remarks. He recognises the importance of the schemes, but I think it is also important to recognise whether the effect of the policy is sound. We need to review and keep under review how this is actually working, and we need to understand the impact of the scheme.

This is why we have asked for a review to consider the effects of the provisions on business investment, employment, productivity and company solvency. We want to look at parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—to see if there is any differential impact as well. It may be the case that some aspects impact on different sectors in different areas more so than others. I know that colleagues in the north-east of Scotland may want to highlight the impact on the oil and gas industry, whose employees have been in touch as part of their constituency business.

It is important to understand what the impact has been, and I think we are guilty, and the Government are certainly guilty—all Governments are guilty—of bringing things forward in the Finance Bill and making proposals, then not really following up and not really understanding the impact. That is often how we arrive at difficult situations such as the ones we are seeing today. I would certainly encourage the Government to consider this again. It is important that what they do is correct, and if it is not correct, it is important to understand that as it rolls out. On the refund scheme, I just want to ask how exactly it will work, when people can expect to obtain any refunds and, indeed, if there is any timescale in place for that.

[Wes Streeting]

I will come on to address new clause 7, proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, shortly because that opens up a broader range of issues worthy of review, such as the scrutiny of HMRC’s implementation of all this.

Clauses 19 and 20 legislate for the proposed disguised remuneration repayment scheme 2020—in broad terms—only. The clauses provide HMRC with considerable discretion as to how to operate the scheme. For example, while there is a right to a review of a repayment decision refusing repayment, that is only by way of representations to HMRC within two months of the decision. There is no independent review of the process. Given what I saw on the Treasury Committee of HMRC’s conduct on the loan charge, that is a serious oversight and mistake. People should have recourse to an independent process, and I am concerned that that is not the case as proposed.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Wes Streeting and Alison Thewliss

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 4th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Wes Streeting]

The Financial Secretary is right that he will not get much by way of argument from us. The bursary is obviously a laudable policy designed to support people in our society who lived in care as children and who far too often face serious disadvantages in terms of educational outcomes, employment opportunities and life chances.

It is a source of deep regret to me, as the son of a parent who spent time in care—care leavers are a big part of my family—that we have not done more as a country to narrow the attainment and opportunity gap for care leavers. Of course it is right that individuals who are in or have left local authority care who subsequently join an apprenticeship scheme should not be subject to income tax and national insurance contributions. We will certainly not oppose a clause designed to give effect to that.

I have some questions for the Financial Secretary about how the Bill deals with that, as much out of curiosity as anything else. There is an existing exemption in section 776 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 for income from scholarships, which includes bursaries held by an individual in full-time education. Section 776 could have been amended to include the bursary payment, instead of introducing a new section to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. I would be grateful if he could clarify why the Government have chosen to enact the provision by amending legislation in that way, rather than using section 776 of the 2005 Act.

I understand that it is the Government’s view that the bursary is employment income rather than other income, but other bursaries are classed as other income, and care leavers could be entitled to bursaries outside an apprenticeship. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government consider this bursary to be employment income. If it is employment income, legislation will be required to exempt the payment from national insurance contributions; if it is not, additional legislation might not be needed. Some understanding of that, for our interest and the interest of all those who follow proceedings such as these closely, would be welcome.

[Alison Thewliss]

Again, I am not looking to oppose the clause. The aim is laudable, but I want to highlight a couple of things about apprenticeships. Coronavirus could significantly affect the number of apprenticeships that will be available to young people this year and perhaps even into next year as well. What do the Government intend to do to make sure that those opportunities are not lost to a generation of young people who are leaving school as well as leaving care?

As you will appreciate, Ms McDonagh, if those young people do not have the opportunities that they should, the impact on them will be devastating—as it will be on society as a whole if their skills and talents do not go into the workplace. I implore Ministers to look carefully at that, to make sure that they do not miss those young people, and that those concerns are high on their agenda. Apprenticeships can be transformational for young people. They can give them new opportunities and a chance to do something that they would never have anticipated through their family background or their ambitions growing up. It is vital to protect them in the months ahead.

I would also highlight the fact that the minimum wage rate for apprenticeships remains staggeringly low. The Government should look carefully at apprentices more generally. The bursary in the clause is fine and laudable, but apprenticeships for all young people need to be properly remunerated. Some of those young people will have families themselves and will be unable to take up those opportunities if they cannot afford to put food on the table because the apprenticeship rate is so low.

Not all young people live with their families, as the bursary recognises; but all young people who want them should have access to apprenticeships. I urge the Government to reconsider minimum wage rates more generally. There should be a living wage for everyone, but apprenticeship rates in particular are incredibly low in this country and they need to be addressed urgently so that all young people who want to can take up those places.

The Government could also look at the work done in the care review in Scotland. We appreciate that not all the things that could have been done to help young people have been done. The care review took an in-depth look at that. I urge the Minister to look at that and at what more can be done to support young carers in society.