Finance (No. 3) Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak at this stage of our proceedings. I am extraordinarily concerned about new clause 1, because it would delay the implementation of clause 5, which is a key part of the Bill because it sets the very level at which people in this country start to pay tax. If we are to address the issues that affect those in our country on the lowest incomes, the best way to help them will to be allow them to keep more of their money in their pockets.

That is why a key part of this Government’s economic strategy has been to make sure, year after year, that those on the lowest incomes are able to keep more of what they earn and to help themselves to build their way out of poverty. That means that 34 million people in this country are paying less tax than previously, and many millions of people have been taken out of tax altogether. This was the No. 1 recommendation of the tax reform commission, which I worked on back in 2006, and I am absolutely delighted that it was among the first steps taken first by the coalition Government, then by the 2015 Government and now by the 2017 Government. This Finance Bill means that raising the level before anyone pays tax to £12,500 is being introduced faster than we ever thought possible.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Given the Front-Bench speech that we heard from the Opposition, it is worth noting that the allowance was only £6,475 when Labour left power, but is now £12,500 under this Conservative Government.

[Vicky Ford]

Absolutely. That is exactly the point, because we know that the best way to address poverty is to make sure that more people can earn their way out of poverty. That does not work for everyone, but for those who can do so, this makes a significant difference, and that is exactly why poverty is now at record lows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend prompted me when he mentioned a golden era. Does he remember when a certain Labour Chancellor thought it an excellent idea to sell off our gold reserves at a record low?

[Kevin Foster]

Absolutely. We could spend a long time analysing the decision to flog the gold reserves. It was the same Chancellor who claimed to have abolished boom and bust—to be fair, he was right: he managed to end the boom at the end of his term, although he did very little to take us away from the bust. The economic cycle is still there, and those who pretended it did not exist were deluding themselves. They kept betting that things would always go up and then things started to go down.

The other thing that has made a difference in Torbay, whose economy has many jobs in the service sector, the hospitality industry and the care sector, is the introduction of the national living wage, because of which many people have had a salary increase. It is easy for an Opposition to pledge all sorts of things, but it is very different to actually deliver in government an income rise for the lowest earners. More people are being paid more than the national living wage—local employers in Torbay are paying beyond that level to attract the staff they need, given the fall in unemployment. We cannot say that the Government’s fiscal policies have had nothing to do with that; they have made a positive difference to the lives of people in my community and others across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I recognise that there is poverty in working families, but I do not agree with her use of the word “trapped”. It is important to ensure that people are in work, because that is the best way out of poverty, and then to ensure that we support people to raise their earnings. One way of doing that is through the support available through the jobcentre when people resume universal credit, which now tends to help people to move up and earn more money, and the other is by looking at the wider economy. As the hon. Lady will know, the minimum wage has risen and is rising, but we are also seeing wages rising independent of the minimum wage as a result of a more productive economy. What is actually key to a better level of wellbeing and fewer people being in poverty is having more people in work, which is the case, and a more productive economy, which means that people earn more. We can achieve that through driving up skills and technology, increasing exports and a swath of other things that would take me into a whole other conversation.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend has mentioned some of the benefits of having a working parent or family member, but it also sets an enormously good example for the children. Children brought up in workless households have low aspirations and ambitions when it comes to obtaining work themselves, so somebody being in work is not just about money, it is about psychological and educative factors, too.

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While education standards are rising in our schools—readings levels, for example, are increasing substantially, leading to better opportunities for children—low levels of aspiration are still a problem and, as the teacher I was speaking to at a primary school in a deprived area said the other day, raising young people’s aspirations is key.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am aware that we are fairly short of time, so I will not rerun many of the things I said in Committee—I am sure the Minister and those on the Opposition Front Bench will be delighted to hear that.

I want to highlight a few of the SNP amendments and new clauses in this group. We have a couple of new clauses asking once again whether the Government’s provisions will do what they intend. For example, we want them to review the changes to entrepreneurs’ relief. We also want them to look at the changes in relation to emergency vehicles, because we are particularly concerned about the potential rural impact. Those who have emergency vehicles in rural areas may have more cause to use them outside work time than people who use them in cities. We felt that that issue was not drawn out enough in Committee or in the information the Government provided previously.

New clause 17 is about Brexit analysis. It is important to note that, since the Brexit vote in June 2016, over $1 trillion has been pulled from UK equity funds, which is obviously a really large number. In any changes or preparations the Government carry out in relation to Brexit, therefore, they should note the impact on the economy, which, according to the Bank of England, has cost individual families £900 each so far, and there is also the impact on financial services, for example, which have historically been very strong in the UK.

New clauses 15, 11 and 14 again ask the Government to provide information through consultation reports. It is important that the Government tell us the consultation they did on the draft clauses they brought forward. On the ones they did not bring forward, why did they not do so?

On that point, I should mention that the Government have included a new schedule in this group. That is a relatively unusual thing for the Government to do at this stage, given that they could have included the schedule in the original Bill or brought it forward in Committee. Because the new schedule was not brought forward in the initial stages, the explanatory memorandum provided by the Government does not include details about it. It would have been helpful if it had been considered at an earlier stage or if the Members who sat through the Bill Committee had been notified that it was likely to come forward. Presumably, the Government knew about it before the Christmas recess, and it did not just appear out of the ether. That process could be improved.

The main thrust of my contribution in the short time I have remaining is about the removal of the link between the personal allowance and the minimum wage. I understand that the Government have removed it on the basis that the personal allowance has now reached £12,500 and that they therefore believe they do not need to keep the link. I understand why they are making that case, but if that link had been kept, with the Government required to do a review if the personal allowance threshold was set at less than £12,500, future Governments would have continued to be bound by it. That would have meant that the protection the Government felt was necessary for people on the lowest incomes would still be there in the future. I understand that the Government do not intend to reduce the personal allowance, but that protection could have been left in place without the law causing any problems. That is something I am concerned about.

It is particularly concerning when the living wage the Government have put in place is not a real living wage, but a pretend living wage. It also does not apply to anyone under 25, which is an issue the SNP has raised over and over again. Just because someone is 24 does not mean that their living costs are less than they would be if they were 26—they could have the same number of children and live in exactly the same accommodation. However, the Government believe that it is okay to pay them less just because they are under that age threshold. That is exacerbated by the fact that the minimum wage increases the Government have introduced this year increase by a higher percentage—not just a higher monetary value—the minimum wage received by those who are over 25. The gap is widening: those who are over 25 are getting a bigger increase in the minimum wage, while there is a smaller increase for the younger age groups. The Government need to take seriously the fact that they are saying apprentices are worth pennies, frankly, and that 16 and 17-year-olds are worth far less than people under the age of 25. We raised our concerns in Committee in relation to the removal of the number. I do not think it would have cost the Government anything to leave in the link to protect future generations.

[Mrs Main]

I wanted to have more time to be able to say what a great job the Government have been doing: a 43-year low for unemployment rates, 1,000 jobs a day created and bringing in the personal allowance upgrade even earlier. We do not have time to go through all that, but I believe that getting people into work and out of poverty is the way forward for many families.

The Government were absolutely right to target business rates as a way of helping the high street and small businesses, with a cut of 33% in rates for businesses with a rateable value of under £51,000. In areas like mine with high property values, however, it is not having the impact the Chancellor might have hoped. The new rate simply provides a cliff edge that penalises successful businesses in areas that are plagued by high property values. We must devise a system that helps small businesses and pubs to thrive, not just those with a low retail value. I recently met pub owners in my constituency who have been hit extremely hard by business rates. I have cut out an awful lot of my speech, but I am pleased to say that I have secured a Westminster Hall debate on this matter next Tuesday. I look forward to exploring the matter further with a Minister. Pubs in areas such as St Albans are seeing massive hikes in business rates, not the help that was intended.

Time is pressing, but I want to touch on new clause 26 tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). I have serious concerns about the retrospective nature of the tax being collected. Several of my constituents have raised cases with me and I am extremely concerned about how the process has been handled. Many make the case that this was not illegal tax evasion; they were advised to use the scheme as a way of keeping more of their own money. It is worth remembering that these people are not employees. They take on more risk, with no sick pay, maternity pay or other forms of support offered to an employee. I want to give a couple of personal examples, because I think that is key and we have so little time.

One of my constituents, who worked as an IT professional in the FinTech industries, is being pursued for £900,000 by HMRC for the loan charge. He is extremely worried—many are on the brink emotionally—and this has put him and his family under considerable stress. He had been advised that what he had done was lawful and he considered it to be so. He told me, worryingly, that he tried to settle the case with HMRC for about £700,000, but that that had been rejected. Many people who find themselves in tax difficulties manage to make negotiated settlements with HMRC. It appears that this particular group of people are being treated very unfairly and are being left in the very difficult situation of not knowing exactly how much they owe or how quickly they have to pay.

[Colin Clark]

Other colleagues will be aware that the oil industry had a lot of contractors who were using what effectively turned out to be disguised schemes. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a duty on HMRC? We have heard today from another hon. Member that customers should not be unduly disadvantaged if they have not managed to settle their claim to date, because after 5 April it will be significantly more.

[Mrs Main]

Exactly. I have also been advised by a former constituent, who, despite no longer living in the UK, is being pursued by HMRC for thousands of pounds of unpaid tax. Another person was advised that this mechanism truly was lawful and it has come as a huge shock to his financial planning that he is left in this position.

There are reportedly over 1,000 people being pursued for unpaid tax. No one is disputing that people should pay tax that is due. The issue is the way it is being requested. People have been badly advised. They have never been able to check whether anything they were doing was illegal, because they were being advised that it was not illegal at the time. It is a loophole that has now been closed.

[Luke Graham]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

It will have to be very quick, because I am aware other people need to speak.

[Luke Graham]

My hon. Friend is making a very valid point. One of my constituents, an IT contractor, was advised by his own accountant. A review would be very helpful in ensuring that people receive proper advice, so that laws can be followed and taxes collected.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There are many versions of that story. I have constituents who say that HMRC was made aware of these arrangements but no objection was raised until many years later. That has to be fundamentally wrong. What more due diligence can anyone do?

I will conclude, because I know the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton wishes to speak. The huge pressure and distress—even suicidal thoughts—that this measure has put in people’s minds is totally unacceptable. I say to the Minister: if we do nothing else tonight, can we accept new clause 26? There is a clear ambiguity in the law that applied at the time—perhaps clarity has been provided now. The fact that people cannot negotiate a reasonable settlement even though they acted in good faith at the time, and are being pursued to the point of the destruction of their careers, homes, family lives and marriages, is completely unacceptable. We clearly need a review, and I hope the Minister takes that on board and accepts new clause 26. If it is pressed to a vote, I shall vote for it.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for her passionate speech. I also thank the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who chairs the Treasury Committee, and right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, who have campaigned as a Parliament against this measure and supported new clause 26. It is my wish to divide the House on the new clause if the Minister does not accept it.

Let me make it crystal clear from the start that I support the Treasury’s aim of closing tax loopholes and stopping tax avoidance. The introduction of loan charges in the Finance Act 2017 to stop future abuse was correct, and the review my new clause proposes would not seek to prevent the Treasury from stopping that abuse from the 2016 Budget announcement. Instead—somewhat inelegantly, due to the rules of Finance Bill debate—new clause 26 aims to focus the minds of Treasury Ministers on the gross unfairness of the way the 2017 Act went about closing an unacceptable tax loophole.

I believe that the review envisaged in the new clause would reveal the unfairness of the retrospective nature of the current loan charge legislation in two ways. First, it would show how that retrospective nature is even more severe than non-retrospective but backward-looking proceedings for the recovery of lost tax elsewhere in our tax legislation. Secondly, it would show that the test of reasonableness included in proposed new section 36A, if applied to the loan charge, would in fact prevent any retrospective tax collection from the loan charge.

Let me remind the House why the Treasury should, after the review, ditch the retrospective nature of this measure, delay April’s implementation and amend the charge so it focuses only on payments made after 2016. It is because the loan charge, as introduced, offends against the rule of law. It is the sort of taxation that led the barons to rebel against King John and gave birth to Magna Carta. It is simply not acceptable for a Government to introduce a law that makes illegal something someone did years ago, when that action was considered legal. That is a clear principle.