Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

As we heard from the Minister, clause 321 will introduce a new domestic band for flights within the UK and a new ultra-long-haul band covering destinations with capitals located more than 5,500 miles from London. Until the end of March 2023, there were two destination rate bands for air passenger duty: band A included those countries whose capital city is less than 2,000 miles from London, with band B covering all other destinations. From 1 April, there have been four destination bands: the domestic band for flights within the UK; band A for non-domestic destinations whose capital is up to 2,000 miles from London; band B for destinations whose capital is between 2,001 and 5,500 miles from London; and band C for all other destinations.

As the Minister explained, clause 322 makes consequential amendments to the provisions that devolve to the Northern Ireland Assembly the power to set the direct long-haul rates of APD. I understand that the changes in the clause do not impinge on the devolved powers, and the devolved rates are not affected. Rather, it updates the provisions to reflect the introduction of clause 321 and the ultra-long-haul band.

Before I address our concerns about this measure, I would be grateful if the Minister could help the Committee to understand what the situation would be if the clause passed by confirming what rates of air passenger duty would apply in a few specific instances. First, if someone were to travel by helicopter around the UK—for instance, from London to Southampton—would that be subject to air passenger duty? Secondly, if someone travelled on a private jet around the UK—say, from London to Blackpool—that was, for argument’s sake, a Dassault Falcon 900LX, what rate of air passenger duty would apply? Finally, if someone lives in the UK but was travelling to another home of theirs—say, in Santa Monica, California—what rate of air passenger duty would apply? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those three questions.

I turn to our concerns about the clause. As the Minister might know, when this measure was first announced at autumn Budget 2021, we raised our concerns about it during the debates on the subsequent Finance Bill. We pointed out then—it is even truer today—that it could not be right for the Government to prioritise a tax cut that would be of greatest benefit to people who are able to be frequent flyers in the UK at a time when working people across the country have been hit again and again by tax rises.

As well as being the wrong priority for public money, the Chancellor announced the cut in air passenger duty just days before COP26. What is more, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out at the time, the cut in air passenger duty would in fact flow through the UK emissions trading scheme and push up electricity prices for people at home. The Government have pointed out that the introduction of a reduced domestic rate of air passenger duty has been accompanied by the introduction of an ultra-long-haul rate. However, when taken together, all the changes in the clause are still set to cost the taxpayer an additional £35 million a year. We cannot support this as a priority for spending public money, so we will oppose the clause.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell us how clause 322(4), which devolves these issues to the Northern Ireland Assembly, will work, given that the Assembly is not sitting at the moment? Does it mean that this will be decided centrally at Westminster? What arrangements are made for that, since, if there was no change in these areas, in the absence of the Assembly sitting, there would be a divergence between air passenger duty in one place and the other? How has the Treasury modelled that divergence, given that air passenger duty is a devolved issue, even though the devolution settlement is not working at the moment because the Assembly is not sitting?

Will the Minister update the Committee on where we are with the aviation treaties that zero-rate aviation fuel? It is an ongoing issue, given the nature of the environmental damage that is done—particularly by aviation fuel—in the higher atmosphere when airplanes fly at higher levels, which they normally do on long-haul flights. How will private jets be treated and affected, if at all, by the reduction in domestic air passenger duty, since we have a Prime Minister who seems to think that public transport is chartering a private jet for short-haul flights?

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

May I declare a loose interest?

I have an elderly mother who lives in Australia. As she is elderly, I am spending more and more time going down there. That aside, has the Minister done any evaluation of air passenger duty and the economic competitiveness of the UK versus our European partners?

I ask that because I know from previous years travelling down to Australia that it has been much more viable for me to catch a flight to Amsterdam, Oslo or wherever and pick up a flight from there, because the cost of flights from the UK has been phenomenally more expensive than those from our European partners. From speaking to people, I know that more and more people are doing that. APD has the adverse effect of making us uneconomical and perhaps at some future point even taking a reduced rate because more and more people will be doing that. Has the Minister or anybody in the Treasury done any evaluation of our air passenger duty versus those of our European counterparts?

[Gareth Davies]

Let me try to answer those questions in order. Just to clarify for the Committee, there is no APD other than on fixed-wing aircraft. Private jets pay a higher rate than any other flight domestically, and they are not, to answer the hon. Member for Wallasey, subject to the 50% cut that we are talking about here. Any ultra-long-haul flights will face a new band, as I described in my opening remarks.

To answer the excellent and reasonable question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), I understand there was a review in 2021 of the economic impact of APD. As I said in my opening remarks, all factors are considered as part of that process, but I am happy to provide more detail in due course if that is warranted.

The point on Northern Ireland that the hon. Member for Wallasey raised is a good one. It is a devolved matter, as she points out, and Northern Ireland has the ability to set the rate for ultra-long-haul flights. Let me look into the matter of the arrangements we are putting in place, given the specific circumstances that we find ourselves in with the Executive. It is a fair question, and it deserves a fair answer, so I will come back to her.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I thank the Minister for undertaking to let us have that information, given the particular circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland. Can he say a little bit about whether there is any progress with the aviation treaties? I know how difficult it is, but it is a complete anomaly that there is no taxation of aviation fuel simply because most flights pass through an international area, given the worse damage that use of aviation fuel does when aeroplanes are travelling at high altitude. Something that we aspired to do when I was in the Treasury was to get some kind of agreement in international treaties to bring that matter into tax. Has any progress been made in the ever-elongated period between when I was in the Treasury and the present day?

[Gareth Davies]

First, let me apologise to the hon. Lady. I had that in my notes to address, and I did not. She is referring to the Chicago convention, which basically is an international agreement whereby we have agreed not to tax aviation fuel. That was, as I understand, enacted in the 1940s. I was told in a briefing yesterday that it may have been updated some eight times since then, but she raises an interesting point. We are committed to all current international agreements, but it is certainly something that I will look into. I still regard myself as fairly new in this job, but I commit to look into it in due course.

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

--- Later in debate ---

On the SNP Benches, we believe that new clause 5 is essential if the focus on climate change is to be reflected not only in energy and environmental policy, but in Treasury matters. Economic policies can be the real driver for necessary change.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

This is a group of clauses on environmental taxes, and the Minister has taken us through some of the technical changes and some of the upratings that are required by law. There is a gap on the landfill tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North pointed out from the Front Bench, which implies that people are avoiding it rather than paying it. What comfort can the Minister give us that HMRC and the tax authorities are on to that issue? We have heard from both sides of the House, particularly on landfill tax, about the fraud that is perpetrated. I suspect that all of us in this room regularly spend our time as constituency MPs phoning various authorities to try to get the evil effects of fly-tipping in our constituencies dealt with.

The Minister has not said anything about enforcement of the tax and anti-fraud measures. He has said a little about how some of the taxes will be redesigned to try to design out some fraud, and I suspect he has done that particularly with the aggregates levy and his attention on so-called borrow pits. Perhaps he will correct me if I have got that wrong, but, having listened to what he had to say on that, I suspect it is about avoidance issues, focusing the aggregates levy on taking away the incentives to use virgin aggregate rather than recycling existing aggregates, and filling in other loopholes.

We all know from our constituencies that the landfill tax is not working as well as it should. Many of us have closed and managed landfill sites in or close to our constituencies. Not all of us have quarries, with the difficulties that occur there, but we all see the baleful effects of fly-tipping and people who save money by dumping rubbish, and sometimes far worse things, into the environment.

Clearly, HMRC and those who collect taxes have a role to play in dealing with fraud, but so has the Environment Agency. Perhaps the Minister will give us some comfort on this, but the weakening of enforcement authorities over the past few years is a real problem. We could have the perfect law, with the perfect text, designed perfectly so that incentives are fantastic, but if it is not enforced properly, it fails. We are certainly seeing that happen with the landfill tax.

Can the Minister give us some comfort that he is on to the issue and that the Treasury knows that it has to spend to save? The Treasury has to enforce the taxes that it levies, but it also has to empower other regulators and agencies that have a policing role, such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, to ensure that enforcement on these very important issues, which have a huge bearing on quality of life in all our constituencies, is properly resourced. Will the Minister give us some guarantees on that? At the moment, particularly with respect to the landfill tax, it is failing.

[Gareth Davies]

First, let me acknowledge that the landfill tax has been an overarching success, with local authority waste into landfill down by some 90% since 1990. I think we can all agree that that is a very good thing for England. I want to emphasise that, because it is a great success story.

A number of questions have been asked about waste crime. I completely agree that any type of waste crime is a blight on all our communities. As constituency MPs, we see the damage that it does, whether it is fly-tipping or other waste crime. That is why we have the joint unit for waste crime.

There have been questions about the effectiveness of the unit and the actions it has taken. I can tell the Committee that the unit is actively engaged in seeking to tackle waste crime. In particular, a special operation was undertaken from April 2020 to November 2022, in which some 100 partner agencies were engaged with the JUWC, and some 2,500 illegal waste sites were closed and a number of criminals engaged. But this is an ongoing problem and something we take very seriously. Of course, the Environment Agency has a role to play. The Government are engaged with all the agencies, not least the joint unit for waste crime, and we will continue to be so for some time to come.

There was a series of questions about the tax gap. For clarity, that is the difference between the amount that should be paid in theory and the amount that is collected by the Exchequer. The overall tax gap was 7.5% in 2005. It reduced to 5.1% in 2020-21. Any percentage of tax gap is too much, so it is important that we keep pressing HMRC to do everything that it can. I am confident that HMRC is tackling businesses that it suspects of waste crime that are not registered with it but could be liable for tax. The Government have given powers to HMRC to compulsorily register those businesses and, if necessary, issue penalties.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am fascinated by the work of the joint unit for waste crime. I am slightly horrified that 2,500 illegal waste sites were closed. It is good that they are closed, but it is horrifying that there were so many of them to begin with. I wonder what estimates there are for how many remain. Could the Minister give us some information about what fines were levied and what prosecutions have been successfully undertaken by the joint unit for waste crime?

[Gareth Davies]

I am grateful for the question. I can tell the hon. Lady that in the period I referenced with the 2,500 waste units, 51 arrests were made as a result of that action. I apologise that I do not have further details to hand, but I am happy to provide them later.

As I was saying—this goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme talked about—HMRC does have powers to intervene and issue penalties if necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I did not realise that that was an intervention; I thought the hon. Gentleman wished to make a speech. The shadow Minister had sat down. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a contribution, I will be happy to call him, but otherwise I will call Angela Eagle.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There is an ongoing issue in this country, and in our economy, with investment and with the ability to ensure that we can remake our prosperity as a country and make our way in the 21st century as we did in previous centuries, thereby maintaining our position in the G7, perhaps, as the rise of other economic powers in other parts of the globe puts that under pressure. [Interruption.] Everybody cheers for that, Mr Stringer. Everybody on this Committee wants to see positive progress in this area.

This Bill is enacting some of the Budget—that is why we are in Committee, considering this legislation—but the OBR report on it had a pretty grim picture to show us of how investment has stalled in our country. On page 48, at chart E, it states that

“business investment stalled…after the EU referendum”.

By the time this document was published, investment was at fully 16.2% below the OBR’s pre-referendum expectations. Those who have sat in the main hot seat in No. 10, and those who have been progressing all too rapidly through the Chancellor’s hot seat, have been aware of that and have tried to do something about it. Most notably, there was the current Prime Minister’s super deduction, which paid people to invest in plant and machinery. It not only deducted the entire cost, but gave even greater tax incentives for them to invest. Effectively, it failed: it made no difference whatever to the stalling levels of investment in plant and machinery in our economy. That has now been replaced.

[Craig Whittaker]

It is interesting to hear what the hon. Lady says about levels of investment in plant and machinery. From the point of view of my patch, Calder Valley, where we have 19.2% of people working in manufacturing, the super deduction has been a huge boost to manufacturing. Will the hon. Lady acknowledge the huge investment of £17.7 billion that has been achieved only this week by the Prime Minister’s trip to Japan? That is an amazing boost to our economy.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am glad that there are positive examples of investment, but what I am talking about is the macroeconomic levels, which demonstrate that we are not where we should be. Essentially, investment has “stalled”—that is the OBR’s word, not mine. That stalling is not disproved by individual examples of investment in particular places. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and all the people who have been involved in doing whatever has happened in Calder Valley—no problem—but I am talking about the macroeconomic effects. The investment zone policy that we are discussing is presumably designed to kick-start investment in particular areas where the zones are marked out, which hopefully will create local prosperity. That is my understanding of what the Minister said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, with which I agree. I will not pretend that the Labour party is in politics for different reasons from us. I genuinely believe that most Members of Parliament are in politics to do good for their local residents and for the country as a whole. The point of contention is on how we achieve that.

I am interested in the contrast between the submission of the hon. Member for Ealing North and the submission of the hon. Member for Wallasey. She represents part of Liverpool, and I grew up in the north-west, so I know Liverpool and Manchester very well. I think we would all agree that Liverpool and Manchester have seen a revitalisation over many decades. It takes a village to raise a child, as the old saying goes, and I fully accept that the previous Labour Administration may have done a great deal to help those areas. Going back a long way—a little before my time, perhaps—Lord Heseltine played his part in helping both Liverpool and Canary Wharf. We are trying to revitalise areas in the same way that Liverpool, Manchester and Canary Wharf, and indeed many other areas, have been revitalised.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The Minister would be very, very unpopular in my constituency if she referred to it as Liverpool. I represent the Wirral, which is over the river, where the Mersey ferry goes when it ferries across the Mersey. People can still listen to Gerry singing “Ferry Cross the Mersey” on the ferry as it goes from Liverpool to the Wirral. I appreciate her comments, but the people of the Wirral regard themselves as a bit different from those in Liverpool.

[Victoria Atkins]

I apologise to the hon. Lady. I meant to refer to the wider area. I thoroughly respect the independence of the good people of the Wirral.

We saw the regeneration and revitalisation of the great city of Liverpool in the wonderful displays at last weekend’s Eurovision celebrations. The regeneration of that great city has, of course, had a much wider ripple effect.

We want to channel the focus and private sector investment to which the hon. Lady rightly refers in revitalising these areas. We want to do that in a way that takes notice and full advantage of the opportunities of the 21st century. The Chancellor set out the sectors that we will concentrate on, because we want to build that investment for the future. There is some extraordinarily good news in our economy in terms of innovative technologies, life sciences and advanced manufacturing. Indeed, I saw in a WhatsApp group only this morning that Rolls-Royce has just unleashed its latest aircraft engine, to great acclaim, here in the UK. That is an extraordinary achievement, which we want replicate across the country. That is the thinking behind investment zones.

When the shadow Minister talked about these exciting proposals, he said nothing about the principles of the investment or the enormous opportunities for communities outside London. I know that he is a Member of Parliament for London, so perhaps he does not have the natural affinity with constituencies outside London that Conservative MPs have, and which I certainly have as a proud Lincolnshire MP. We really want to focus on the excitement for what we can achieve around the rest of the country. The shadow Minister, however, just focuses on process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Chapman]

I am sure that Members gathered here agree on the importance of data gathering, impartial analysis and evidence-based decision making. We can make informed decisions only if the facts are laid out in front of us in black and white. It would seem wise, then, that data be gathered on the costs and benefits of doing away with the Office of Tax Simplification before a final decision is made.

I will also be so bold as to point out that the recommendation to abolish the OTS came from a rather short-lived and now infamous Chancellor in his ironically named growth plan Budget of September 2022. Suffice it to say that the growth plan went down like a lead balloon after weeks of market turbulence, with unprecedented condemnation from the International Monetary Fund. That is not to mention the important—indeed, massive—£60 billion fiscal hole left in its wake. The then Chancellor and his Prime Minister swiftly exited stage left before more damage was done to the economy, our global reputation and citizens’ livelihoods.

Interestingly, of the many gung-ho announcements made in that growth plan, abolition of the OTS is one of the few that has not been reversed. When it comes to gathering evidence and data for making evidence-led decisions, and listening to experts and a broad group of stakeholders on tax simplification, we still have a long way to go, if this still seems to the Government to be a wise decision. One such expert is George Crozier, head of external relations at the Association of Taxation Technicians and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. He has argued that the OTS achieved a significant amount during its 12 years of existence and, with greater ministerial support for its proposals, could have achieved much more. Mr Crozier and the CIOT argue that among the OTS’s achievements since it was established in 2010 are the abolition of more than 40 unnecessary tax reliefs that were “clogging up” the tax system, as well as

“useful reforms to employee expenses and inheritance tax reporting,”

which have all had a positive impact. In fact, the CIOT informs us that

“every Finance Act of the last decade has had measures in it which owe their genesis to the OTS, and which have made navigating the tax system easier for one group or another.”

Does the Minister not believe that is a good thing?

Importantly, the ATT believes that there are many benefits to maintaining independent advice to the Government on tax simplification; for example, the OTS drew directly and effectively on the skills and expertise of tax professionals, professional bodies and taxpayers when making its recommendations for simplification. The ATT believes that the OTS maintained that level of engagement only due to the trust and belief that the OTS would treat its comments and views impartially and fairly. The ATT’s concern is that without the perceived independence of the OTS, taxpayers and professionals will be more reluctant to come forward with relevant evidence and experience. Does the Minister not believe that relevant evidence and experience are good things?

If analysis leans in the direction of abolishing the OTS, it seems fair to back up calls from Mr Crozier and his colleagues to question the UK Government on how they will deliver the promise to embed tax simplification in the institutions of government. Will the Minister confirm that he will at least give the OTS a stay of execution until further evaluation is carried out, or will the OTS baby be thrown out with the bath water? In the run-up to an election, it may be popular with the public if the Government of the day were seen to be taking the thoughtful and sensible decision to retain the services of the OTS.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

New clause 1 is also part of this group. As a member of the Treasury Committee, which fairly collectively signed new clause 1, I will speak to the new clause, as well as to the Scottish National party amendment to clause 346.

It came out of the blue that the Office of Tax Simplification was to be abolished as part of the mini-Budget—the catastrophic event last September that created the worst of all events in the Treasury. Interesting times. As an ex-Treasury Minister, I can assure you, Mr Stringer, that boring times are the best; interesting times, when bond markets soar and pension funds teeter, are not the best. We were thrown into that situation with the mini-Budget, out of which came the sudden announcement that the Office of Tax Simplification would be abolished. The reason given for that abolition was that we would boost economic growth and simplify the tax system by having tax simplification in house. That is one of the more Orwellian reasons for abolishing something that I have heard. It was set up by a previous Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne; I can use his name because he is no longer a Member of this House and has gone on to other—I will not say better—things.

When the OTS was set up, the idea was to identify areas where complexities in the tax system for business and taxpayers could be reduced. We need only look at the thickness of this modest Bill to realise how complex financial legislation can be. This is the Finance (No. 2) Bill, and others will be along soon, I am sure. Yesterday, we had a hearing of the Treasury Committee on tax reliefs and cliff edges, and we were told that there were 1,180 tax reliefs in the system. Of them, 841 are structural, and 339 are non-structural, which apparently means that they are aimed at behaviour. That is a lot of tax reliefs. Every relief, whether for a good or a bad reason, creates a complexity. I am not arguing at all that tax systems should be completely simple—complexity is sometimes important and inherent to the way that a tax works—but as with all these things, it is possible to have too much of a good thing. It tends to go beyond complexity for a good reason and become complexity for complexity’s sake.

I do not know why—perhaps the Minister could enlighten us—it was suddenly decided that the Office of Tax Simplification was such a thorn in the side of the Treasury that it could be abolished forthwith without much notice, and that a job that has not really been done routinely in the Treasury could suddenly be done in house without any kind of preparation. When the Treasury Committee had staff from the Office of Tax Simplification give evidence in a hearing, they did not really know why it had been abolished, either. Nobody likes to be abolished. I cannot think that they were enamoured of the idea, but they were very diplomatic. They did not really have any confidence that the more systematic look at how taxes could be simplified over time would continue once the office had been abolished.

Could the Minister give us some insight as to why the abolition was announced? Why was it reconfirmed by the new Administration—one of the four that we have had in the last year—when they came into office that they would go ahead with the abolition? It is one of the few things that the previous Prime Minister and her Administration inaugurated that has survived the shake-up of the system.

The Institute for Government argues that the Office of Tax Simplification should not be abolished, but that if it is, it should be replaced with a body with a wider remit that can make extensive recommendations on tax administration beyond just simplification. It points to the utility of having an independent body that provides options for tax reform.

Our political structures are littered with huge, all-encompassing reviews, such as the Mirrlees review of the entire taxation system. They are always so controversial, but it is rare that their recommendations are implemented. Having a body that could undertake some of this work in smaller bites may help us to reduce the complexity of our system while not compromising on fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Thank you, Mr Stringer

I thank the members of the Office for Tax Simplification for their contribution to the tax debate over the years. I had the pleasure of meeting some of them just after I was appointed. As I said to them at the time, although the OTS will longer exist once the Bill has passed, their expertise will none the less not be lost to the Government, and I very much look forward to working with its members in different ways over the coming months and years.

The closure of the OTS does not mean that simplifying tax is no longer a priority. In fact, I have set three criteria for tax policy across the Treasury and HMRC: for any document or proposal that I am given, officials must tell me, first, how it meets the expectation that it will make tax fairer; secondly, how it meets the expectation that it will make tax simpler; and, thirdly, how it meets the expectation that it will help to support growth. Having that in the document—I have said this many times, because it was a very early commitment that I put down—has really helped our discussion of those principles when forming tax policy.

As I have mentioned in Budget debates and so on, one of the tensions between those first two criteria is that to make a tax fairer, sometimes we end up making it more complicated—for example, when we talk about tapering schemes, as we are doing in the Bill more widely. We have a scheme whereby we are tapering the rise in corporation tax for businesses that have smaller profits. That makes it more complicated but also fairer, so there is sometimes a trade-off between the interests and wishes of those involved in administering tax or helping taxpayers. With the best will in the world, the OTS, as an arm’s length body set up to comment on simplification alone, could not help with those sorts of balancing acts, which is why the Chancellor has set a clear mandate for officials in the Treasury and HMRC to focus on simplicity in tax policy design as part of our decision-making process.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There is clearly a difference between the accrued complexity across a particular tax from end to end, which can gather barnacles over time, and a ministerial decision on whether to opt explicitly for a bit more complexity to achieve fairness, which is not a design issue but a political choice. Surely the Office for Tax Simplification was good at looking at the former, while leaving decisions on the latter to those who ought to be making them: the Ministers in charge at the time.

[Victoria Atkins]

Of course, pretty much every decision that comes across my desk is political in nature. Officials have very much taken on board their responsibilities in this regard.

The hon. Member for Ealing North asked about a letter sent to me in April from important tax specialists and organisations. In fact, I met them last week to discuss that very letter. I wanted to meet the organisations to discuss, for example, how to make tax simpler for the lowest paid in society and how we can try to help tax agents to navigate their way around the tax system, because that will help not just taxpayers but also, importantly, HMRC. We really have begun to embed this in our decision-making process.

The reason we want to make this change is that people were concerned that there was a tendency to rely on the OTS to look at simplification because that was its job, and we wanted to bring it very much into the Treasury. Of course, that does not mean that there is never going to be any commentary or analysis or observations about simplicity. My goodness me, I do not think anyone could claim that the world of tax lacks analysis, commentary and often criticism—hopefully constructive—of the tax system. I do not perhaps have quite the same concerns about us being accountable for the political decisions we make.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

If I may, I will make some progress, because I want to deal with new clause 1 and amendment 2, which are important.

On new clause 1, the Chancellor committed to Select Committee colleagues that he is asking officials about tax simplification ahead of every Budget and fiscal event. That will mean that hon. Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s progress. In the last Budget, we were able to bring forward measures such as the cash basis for business, which will help enormously by helping more than 4 million sole traders to calculate and pay their income tax. We also introduced the permanent £1 million limit to the annual investment allowance, which will simplify the tax treatment of capital expenditure for 99% of businesses. There are also other measures.

In relation to the point about measuring and metrics in simplification, the Government are genuinely considering how to develop a suite of metrics to measure progress on simplification, working with businesses and representative bodies to ensure that measures reflect the real-world experience of taxpayers.

On amendment 2, it is right that the Chancellor has responded to the Committee, having written on 20 March to explain the rationale for the decision. I hope that helps to answer some of the questions that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife may have had. I refer again to the point that simplification is a vital principle to bear in mind when looking at the tax system, but it is not the only one. As the hon. Member for Wallasey rightly says, I have to make political decisions on a host of matters.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I agree about that and I am glad to hear that the Minister is making decisions on a host of issues, although politically we may not always have the same approach to them. She was talking about there being plenty of commentary on tax issues. There always is, but the point about the Office of Tax Simplification was that it was not doing it from a set stance. For example, one will get plenty of commentary from accountants about particular things, and it will tend to be mainly about the interests of the people who use accountants—their clients. That comes from a particular space, as a user of the tax system, or someone that helps comment or advise on the tax system. The Office of Tax Simplification could look at a tax from its start all the way through its process—look at what it was intended to do and whether it would be possible to administer it in a different way, for simplification purposes, without coming from a particular viewpoint. If the OTS goes, I do not think there is anybody out there now that will do that in a neutral way. As such, a lot of the commentary that one gets on the tax system comes from a very particular, interested place, which often gives a bigger voice to small groups of taxpayers than to larger numbers of taxpayers. Is the Minister not worried that by making this decision, she is going to lose objective oversight of a system that is not coming from a biased place, but is looking purely at the criterion of simplicity?