Draft Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the rationale for the measures. Of course, we have talked in previous Committees about other statutory instruments arising out of them. This is a significant problem; I understand that more than 11 million pensioners, in particular, are being targeted annually by cold callers, with fraudsters making 250 million calls a year, which is the equivalent of eight per second. That is a huge problem, and behind those figures there is a significant human impact on some vulnerable people.
As the Minister will be aware, during the Committee stage of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 the Labour party called for the FCA, rather than the ICO, to be given functions in respect of the ban on unsolicited direct marketing relating to pensions. The FCA has much stronger powers than the ICO and can strike off members who contravene the rules. We also called for an offence to be created for the use of information obtained through cold calling.
Will the Minister explain his response to those points? I have looked through the accompanying material and it is not crystal clear to me which body will be responsible for enforcing the ban, or whether the respective powers of the FCA, as against those of the ICO, have been taken into account in this determination.
I am concerned about the restricted powers of the ICO. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the views of various representative bodies. In particular, the Fair Telecoms campaign has intimated that the ICO has restricted means of ensuring compliance. I recall sitting on a previous Committee examining delegated legislation related to other parts of the Act, where we discussed transferring authority to the FCA precisely because it is a more powerful and authoritative body. It would be useful to hear more about that.
Secondly, it would have been helpful to ban the use of information derived from cold calls. That would have resulted in firms that provide financial services covered by the FCA being banned from using information gathered by introducers, thereby breaking that part of the chain. I know that that idea was not accepted by the Government, but has the Minister considered other means of dissuading such forward use of that information?
Thirdly, perhaps I have not got to grips with the relevant part of the legislation, but it is not clear to me exactly who the draft regulations will cover with respect to the telephone preference service register. The Fair Telecoms campaign maintains:
“This change in regulation will only affect the behaviour of callers who are currently checking numbers on the TPS register before making calls. For those who do not it simply adds to the cases that may be the subject of action by the ICO, rather than making any significant change.
Targets with their numbers on the TPS—the basis for many of the statistics given about the volume of calls alleged to be covered—are not affected in any way by this measure. It is understood that 80% of UK households have their number recorded on the TPS. At best, this measure can only affect the remaining 20%.”
Will the Minister clarify whether the draft regulations are focused on those not covered by the telephone preference service? If so, is it the Government’s view that the service is sufficient? It would be helpful to hear the Government’s thinking on the matter.
Fourthly, the Minister states that the draft regulations are in line with GDPR requirements, but some have suggested that their consent provisions are weaker than those in the GDPR. It would be helpful to understand where the exact language used about consent in the draft regulations has come from and why it is formally different from the language used in the GDPR.
Fifthly, as I understand it the regulations are drafted to cover only cases in which there is specific reference to
“funds held, or previously held, in an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension scheme”.
Cases in which a caller fails to make specific reference to the source of the funds that may be used for an unwise investment will therefore not be covered. Is the Department aware of that potential loophole? We can all imagine a particularly inventive and devious caller simply manipulating their sales script to comply with the letter but not the spirit of the draft regulations by talking in general terms without referring to a specific existing personal or occupational pension scheme.
Finally, may I push a little harder on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian? Would a response to a text message that was legal under PECR be sufficient to enable future cold calls within this regime?
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister shakes his head, helpfully. I will take that as a no, but it would be great to get a response to my other questions.
John Glen
Fraud is fraud, and with actionable fraud the police can be contacted in such circumstances. With respect to the cold calling mechanism, I have said all I can on that. The Government are open on the basis of evidence to move forward.
The hon. Lady also raised the issue of how the Government will ensure that consumers do not accidentally give consent through ticking a box on a form. To give clarity on what GDPR sets out, it is a high standard of consent, requiring a positive opt in. Any default method, such as a pre-ticked box, does not constitute consent under GDPR, as I made clear in my opening remarks. Guidance to firms on complying with GDPR highlights that that request for consent must be prominently displayed, clear and specific, and separate from the terms and conditions.
I hope that that deals—
Anneliese Dodds
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, who has been generous and helpful in his responses. I have one question remaining, which might fit into the rubric of what he has said about Government being open to further tightening, if necessary. I have handed over my speaking notes, but I recall that the legislation refers specifically to occupational or other pension schemes, and how a scammer or somebody selling inappropriately could use general talk of pensions to get into that conversation, and thus creatively comply. Will the Minister’s Department look at that carefully?
John Glen
I am clear that this is about pensions cold calling. I understand what the hon. Lady is saying about loopholes, in the sense that that conversation could hide that intent. It would be appropriate for me to reflect on that and write to the hon. Lady and the Committee. She raises a fair point, and the last thing we want to do is leave such ambiguity out there.
To conclude, this legislation will make a real impact in tackling pensions scams, deterring pensions cold callers by making their actions illegal and signalling to consumers that legitimate companies will not cold call them about their pensions. I hope the Committee will have found the sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elizabeth Truss
I celebrate when the UK economy is doing well and I celebrate when the Scottish economy is doing well. I was recently in Scotland meeting the Scottish Finance Minister and talking about measures to improve growth. What I think will be interesting is to see, in tomorrow’s Scottish budget, whether the Scottish Government match the tax cuts that we have made across the rest of the UK—or will Scottish taxpayers end up paying more?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Resolution Foundation has found that millennials’ weekly earnings are less than those of the previous generation at the same age, which is unprecedented. That is due to more insecure and low-paid jobs, and less job mobility. As well as stronger workers’ rights, halting the decline in business investment would help, but that needs business confidence. Will the Chief Secretary tell me why her Government are listening only to the European Research Group, not to the voice of business when it says that we need a permanent customs union?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady obviously has not seen today’s wages figures, which show that real pay grew by 0.8%, and we are seeing more and more young people getting into work.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Ninth sitting)
Anneliese Dodds ExcerptsTuesday 11th December 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 December 2018 - (11 Dec 2018)
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms Dorries. I agree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. I will first speak to our amendments that push in a similar direction to the Scottish National party’s, before moving on to those that highlight other shortcomings of the clause.
To address the effect of the extended time limits on vulnerable taxpayers, our amendment 139 would introduce a de minimis threshold of £50 for the extended time limits, pushing in a similar direction to SNP amendments 105, 106, 107, 137 and 138. It follows the advice of the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s low incomes tax reform group, which raised concerns about the clause. Its written evidence states:
“LITRG remain deeply concerned about the impact of these changes on low income, unrepresented taxpayers.”
Our amendment seeks to restore a sense of balance to the new procedures set out in the clause. Given the serious restrictions on amending this legislation, which we have raised many times in this Committee, we are not able wholly to reform the process, but we think our amendment would improve the clause by making a moderate change that has been requested by groups that have lobbied Committee members. LITRG’s written evidence continues:
“In order to reduce the impact of the measure, the Government should introduce a de minimis threshold for the extended time limits to apply. For example, the approach taken by HMRC in assessing trivial amounts under the Worldwide Disclosure Facility (WDF), e.g. where the net amount due after applicable reliefs is no more than £50, may be suitable.”
Why might a de minimis threshold be necessary? LITRG points out that the changes
“only affect those who have acted non-deliberately and they erode the distinction…between those who take reasonable care and those who are careless.”
It further notes:
“Threatening letters from HMRC cause a great deal of unnecessary distress”—
particularly to vulnerable people who may not understand why they have been contacted. Surely it would be sensible to focus HMRC’s resources on dealing with large-scale tax evasion, rather than on people—especially older people—who may accidentally have failed to pay a very small amount of tax. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting amendment 139 in the spirit in which it was intended: as a genuine improvement that would protect vulnerable people.
Amendment 140 would introduce a public register of companies included under the changes. It relates to Labour’s wider policy, which we have pushed several times in this Committee, of having a public register of offshore trusts. It would be wonderful if the Government decided that they wanted to accept that policy now. Perhaps they will do so in this potentially final sitting. Who knows? We can always hope.
To further address the potential effect on vulnerable people, amendment 141 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of the changes in relation to characteristics including age, income, primary language and legal status. That would help us to better understand how they may affect individuals or organisations, because we need to get a sense of who the measures focus on and who HMRC will be chasing as a result. It is essential that all tax owed is paid, but given the impact on the Exchequer of the large tax breaks and sweetheart deals that the Government have engaged in, it seems unlikely that the measures will affect those who have avoided the largest amounts of tax. It would be helpful if we understood more about that, which is what our amendment pushes for.
In its briefing, LITRG has some interesting information about this point. It says:
“Many people assume that ‘offshore’ tax matters relate only to the wealthy. However, 24% of daily enquiries to the charity Tax Help for Older People in September 2018 were related to the Worldwide Disclosure Facility. The average age of the callers was 76 and they had small amounts of foreign bank interests and/or pensions.”
It continues:
“In our experience and from insight garnered from THOP, the vast majority of taxpayers who have undisclosed liabilities related to offshore investments will want to be compliant upon simply being made aware of the error”.
LITRG also makes a point about accessibility for non-native English speakers:
“Migrants, whose first language is unlikely to be English and who may therefore struggle to navigate the complex rules on the taxation of offshore income and gains, are another group likely to be affected because they are more likely to have offshore investments prior to their arrival in the UK.”
The measures are significant because they change the conventions on how long taxpayers would anticipate having to save information about their tax affairs. The LITRG briefing states:
“The measure adds complexity to the question of taxpayer certainty on when a tax year is ‘closed’ and impacts on a taxpayer’s record-keeping obligations—effectively requiring people to keep records for 12 years just in case they need to make a disclosure to HMRC. This is well beyond the current statutory time limit for keeping records.”
Most of us, I think, would assume that seven years is the normal period for which one would be sure to keep those records, and 12 years is a significant extension. The Government’s equalities impact statement on the proposals makes no attempt to understand how those different individuals would be affected. We think it is necessary for the Government to look carefully at the question.
As to amendment 142 and amendment 145, which pushes in the same direction, more information is necessary about the proposed revenue effects of the clause. We have spoken many times in Committee about the importance of publishing full and transparent information on policy changes, to allow for proper opposition. We have often felt that there has not been adequate scrutiny of the Bill. Of course, I am saying this on the day that was set for the meaningful vote, which has been cancelled, when we were hoping for a chance to scrutinise another area.
The policy papers accompanying the clause point to “negligible” revenue effects from the change, for at least three years, along with some costs, also described as negligible. I have said many times that it is essential that all tax due should be paid, but one must wonder what the Government are doing when they say that there will be only a negligible impact on revenue from the changes, given the scale of the wider tax gap, and the avoidance going on in certain sectors. It would be helpful to have more information about that, so that we can understand why the Government are prioritising in this direction.
We also need an understanding of the measures in relation to incentives to comply with tax rules, which is what amendment 143 would provide for. The issue is once again eloquently set out by LITRG, which states:
“the proposals erode a general feature of the current law that the circumstances leading to the error determine the length of time which HMRC have in order to raise a discovery assessment. The incentive to take reasonable care is therefore reduced under the proposals, because an individual will have the same time limit applicable when they make a non-deliberate error, whether or not that error is careless.”
So it seems that, according to the experts, the changes may make it less likely that HMRC will collect its full due of tax, and that, instead, incentives not to comply will be created. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s comments on the LITRG assessment. What provisions have the Government put in place to ensure that incentives are not weakened by these measures? If the Government have not put policies and protocols in place, they should accept the amendment and conduct the review the Opposition ask for.
Amendment 145 would apply a review of revenue effects to clause 80, which is similar to what amendment 142 would do. The two clauses need to be taken together, because both impose longer time limits, in relation to income tax and inheritance tax. However, a big area has arguably been missed out—corporation tax. As I understand it, both measures taken together are forecast to raise £15 million in the scorecard up to 2022-23, which is, as I have said, a quite small amount. We feel that that could be because of the decision to restrict this measure to income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax, and not to apply it to corporation tax.
That is peculiar, because there was a commitment in the consultation document to potentially apply the extended time limit to corporation tax as well, dependent on the result of the consultation. The consultation document stated:
“given that many offshore structures involve corporate entities, the government is considering, and would welcome views on, applying this proposal to CT”.
Doing so would have made a lot of sense, because there is currently exact alignment between assessing time limits for companies and individuals—four years for innocent error, six years for carelessness and 20 years for deliberate error or fraud.
However, the Government’s response to the consultation, issued this summer, said that, while the extended time period for assessment will apply to income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax, the Government would, as a result of feedback, not apply the measure to corporation tax at this stage. That leads to many surprising anomalies. In the future, assuming that these measures are enacted, HMRC will have at least 12 years to investigate the affairs of small, unincorporated businesses involved in offshore transactions, but it will have only four years to do so if identical transactions are undertaken by corporates. A small sole trader or partnership whose business involves offshore transactions will be subject to investigation for at least 12 years, while a huge company such as Google or Amazon that is engaged in similar activities will have finality after just four years, unless fraud or carelessness are involved.
At this stage we surely need to know why the Government decided to reject a longer assessment period for corporation tax. There were only 11 responses to the consultation in total, including from some very large firms that work with very large corporates. The response document stated that
“the majority of respondents were not in favour of applying ETL—
extended time limits—
“to corporation tax (CT) and raised concerns about the possible impact on increasing administrative costs if this was done.”
The document said that “12 years of uncertainty” were
“a particular concern for corporates with complex affairs.”
It added that some existing anti-avoidance measures relating to offshore structures do not apply to corporates—it did not state which ones, and corporates are generally subject to more stringent anti-avoidance rules for offshore transactions than individuals—and that applying them would create inconsistencies.
The response document also noted that respondents were concerned about the 12-year time limit applying to those groups subject to controlled foreign company—CFC—rules, even though such rules are designed to apply only to the most egregious avoidance structures, so not the kind that would be targeted by this measure. The document states:
“CFC legislation applies to corporates and their offshore subsidiaries. The application of a 12 year assessment time limit was seen by the majority of respondents as creating major complications for corporates with CFCs who might need to keep records for each subsidiary for many years as a precautionary measure.”
[Interruption.] Ooh, I am about to be beamed up. Anyway, I will continue. In the light of those concerns, the Government said in the response document that they would not apply the extended time limits to corporation tax.
The rationale offered for extended time limits for income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax in the original consultation document was that the existing time limits are inadequate for HMRC to investigate the full facts, because of the complexity of offshore structures. At the same time, the response document says that the reason the measure will not be applied to companies is that the affairs of large companies are so complex that it would represent an unacceptable administrative burden for them to be subject to the same time limits as smaller, unincorporated businesses. I hope the Committee is picking up on some of the paradoxes in this response document.
The response document also asserts that applying extended time limits to companies would create inconsistencies, yet at the moment, as I mentioned, assessing time limits for individuals and companies are aligned. It is this measure that creates the inconsistency by making small businesses subject to new time limits three times longer than those applicable to corporates.
In practice, complex offshore structures are rarely used by small businesses. However, they are routinely employed by multinational enterprises as a way of minimising their tax—for example, the type of structures known to be used by the likes of Google and Amazon that put their profits into territories where no or little tax is paid. Having extra time to investigate the affairs of such companies seems a proper response to their use of these offshore structures, yet they will be unaffected by the new extended time limit rules. On the other hand, small, unincorporated businesses will be subject to them, as well as, potentially, elderly individuals with few resources to draw on to fully understand the complex impact of tax rules.
As well as being unfair, the exception for corporates provides an easy way around the rules. Simply transferring an existing offshore structure into a corporate body means the measure will have no impact. This arguably makes the measures a trap for the poorly advised, while having no impact on those from whom any yield might be expected to derive—multinational enterprises and the wealthy, who can create corporations to avoid potential investigation.
Because of the limits within which the Bill has been set, we cannot directly table an amendment that would push in the direction of including corporates. However, we do ask for a review of revenue impacts because it would enable us to get further into the question of how much revenue this measure could raise as against other measures.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Ladies opposite for their contributions, and I will deal with some of the specific points that were raised and then deal in more general terms with the measures and the amendments.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised the issue of retrospectivity. I can assure her that the Law Officers have confirmed that there is nothing retrospective about the measures in the clause. It is the case that no investigation that has been closed, for example, will be reopened as a consequence of the measures here. At the point that the measures come into effect, no one who is, at that point in time, out of scope of the changes would be brought into scope.
On the issue raised by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Oxford East on consultation, we held a public consultation on the details of the reform on 19 February 2018. The consultation closed on 14 May, and the response to the consultation and the draft legislation were published on L-day, on 6 July.
The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the issue of the de minimis amount and referred to LITRG. It is not true that we are not securing significant amounts from the most wealthy, whether individuals or corporations. For the last year for which we have records, 2017-18, HMRC secured £1 billion in tax from the wealthiest individuals and £9 billion from the largest and most complex businesses operating in the UK—tax that would otherwise have gone unpaid.
The hon. Member for Oxford East also raised at length the important issue of why corporation tax is not included along with inheritance tax and income tax. As she said, we consulted on this aspect at some length. The vast majority of responses did not support extending the measure to corporation tax and raised a number of new practical and legal issues with such an extension. The hon. Lady identified some of them, although I know she was not persuaded by the arguments that were put. However, there were a number of them.
For example, the rules that identify offshore issues were not designed for corporates and would result in a wide range of genuine commercial transactions being caught that were never considered when the rules were originally designed. Tax indemnity agreements on the sale or purchase of businesses could also be affected retrospectively, as a 12-year time limit was never anticipated. The 12-year time limit could create major complications for corporates with control of foreign companies—the hon. Lady spoke about that at length. Some corporates are also subject to other rules, such as the senior accounting officer rule, so it was seen as unnecessary to extend the measure to such companies.
The hon. Lady also specifically mentioned Google and Amazon, or a similar type of business, in this context. She should not overlook the fact that we are right at the forefront of looking at a digital services tax to make sure that those companies pay their fair share of tax in the United Kingdom.
Anneliese Dodds
Will the Minister explain whether those firms were strongly in favour of the measures that have been taken in relation to them and others, such as the diverted profits tax, or whether they have argued against them, potentially in consultations? Is consulting those who may, or whose clients may, have a revenue hit as a result of the measure and only listening to them really the appropriate way to make policy?
Mel Stride
I was making a slightly different point. It was not so much about what the response may or may not have been—I do not know the answer to that, regarding the measure that is under consideration by the Committee—but rather about our push to make sure that just those companies pay the appropriate level of taxation in the United Kingdom. Frankly, I think the businesses themselves want to be seen to be paying a fair level of tax. That is the impression that I get from the Treasury perspective. We are not on the back foot on this; we are very much on the front foot, pushing within both the OECD and the European Union to make sure that we can come up with a multilateral solution, which has particular advantages over going it alone. However, we have made it clear, as the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget, that in the event that there is not a multilateral solution, we will of course act unilaterally by 2020.
Mel Stride
Yes, of course. I would be very happy to do that and in some detail. As I have already suggested, the general point is that those businesses that would not be in scope of these new arrangements, at the moment that they come into effect, would remain out of scope of these arrangements. That is the important point, I think, but I will certainly write to provide further detail.
My final point is about whether we are going soft on larger businesses, which I think was the overarching implication of the hon. Member for Oxford East. She should bear it in mind that at any one time, about half the 210 largest businesses in the United Kingdom are under active investigation. That does not mean that they are doing anything wrong—it may be far from it—but I sincerely believe that HMRC are very good at making sure that those businesses are thoroughly engaged with, particularly the large ones, because that is where a lot of yield lies.
Anneliese Dodds
We are not talking about whether those large businesses are taxed at all, are subject to new tax measures or are investigated at all. What we are talking about are the time limits for that investigation. There is an anomaly in what the Government are presenting between the time limits for corporates against individuals. Surely that is what needs to be addressed.
Mel Stride
I am reflecting the fact that while corporation tax is not covered by these measures, that is not the same thing as saying that we do not have an appropriate regime overall for making sure that large businesses pay their fair share. I was giving some examples such as the diverted profits tax, common reporting standards and all sorts of things, including base erosion and profit shifting, that the hon. Lady will know feed into that particular argument.
To turn to the generality of the measures, clauses 79 and 80 make changes to help ensure that everyone pays the tax they owe. Individuals under inquiry by HMRC for offshore non-compliance will now face assessment for 12 years of back taxes for income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. It applies only to cases where tax losses arise in respect of offshore matters or offshore transfers.
Those clauses will affect only individuals with offshore structures who are not paying the correct amount of tax. The measure is not retrospective as it does not give HMRC the power to reopen any currently closed cases. It is right and fair that everyone pays the tax they owe. It can take longer for HMRC to establish the facts where offshore non-compliance is involved. In some complex offshore cases, tax cannot be collected as the time limits for HMRC to assess the tax run out before the facts can be established.
The changes made by clauses 79 and 80 will ensure that HMRC is able to deal with offshore cases effectively, where the facts are often difficult to establish. The time limit for assessment by HMRC will be extended for non-deliberate behaviour from four years in ordinary circumstances and six years in cases where there was carelessness, to 12 years. The time limit for assessment will remain at 20 years for deliberate behaviour. This measure will help to prevent individuals from avoiding a full investigation by HMRC because of the difficulty in assessing information on offshore structures and investments.
The new extended time limits will not enable HMRC to assess any tax that can no longer be assessed under current rules at the time the legislation comes into force. That was the point at the heart of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. The new time limits will not apply where HMRC has received information in accordance with certain international agreements from other tax authorities, on the basis that it was reasonable to expect an assessment to be made within the existing time limit. The clauses will raise £30 million by 2024.
Amendment 105 would unbalance the safeguards that ensure that the new time limits only apply if HMRC already has the information to make an assessment and could reasonably make it within the current time limits. If the amendment was passed, HMRC could receive information on a tax compliance case that it would be unable to act on. If, for example, information was provided from overseas immediately before the end of the current time limit, HMRC would be timed out of collecting the lost tax. That could incentivise slow responses from overseas intermediaries when partner jurisdictions gather information in response to HMRC requests.
Amendments 106 and 107 would change the years for which the clause would have effect. Where loss of tax is brought about carelessly, that would change from 2013-14 to 2019-20, and where brought about in any other case from 2015-16 to 2019-20. The amendments would water down the Government’s commitment to tackling offshore non-compliance now and delay, for at least a further four years, the additional time that the provision gives HMRC, so that the time limits would only begin to extend from tax year 2023-24. The Government are clear that the provision should start helping HMRC’s compliance work as soon as possible.
Amendment 139 would insert a de minimis threshold of £50 tax loss before the time limit applied. As currently drafted, the clause ensures that HMRC has the time necessary to conduct complex investigations. It is right therefore that HMRC can collect the tax due, regardless of the amount, once it has been calculated. It would be fundamentally unfair if the de minimis principle applied to offshore cases but not to onshore cases.
Anneliese Dodds
Forgive me, but is there a 12-year time limit for onshore cases for individuals?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for very generously giving way again. He said that it would be unfair to create an anomaly between the tax affairs of those with offshore and onshore business, but we have just established that there is not a 12-year time limit for those onshore. Is there not therefore an anomaly?
Mel Stride
This is probably a classic case of me speaking too quickly and the hon. Lady not being given the fair opportunity to digest exactly what I said, which I will repeat, because it is a slightly different point. We are talking about the £50 de minimis, not the 12-year extension. I will reiterate exactly what I said for the hon. Lady’s benefit, so she is absolutely certain that I am not bamboozling her on this point. I said that it is right therefore that HMRC can collect the tax due, regardless of the amount, once it has been calculated. It would be fundamentally unfair if the de minimis principle—I am referring to the £50 threshold—applied to offshore cases but not to onshore cases. In other words, it is her amendment that would create the anomaly.
Anneliese Dodds
I thank the Minister for allowing me to comment on this again. We are surely talking about very different cases. One deals with the normal process of tax collection and investigation, which most individuals assume would apply for seven years, and people need to keep papers for that long. The other is fundamentally different, and deals with the extension of the time limit to 12 years. If we were to do that onshore, then we may also wish to introduce a de minimis for that process, which would, as his measure introduces, go back between seven and 12 years. That is a point that needs to be made.
Mel Stride
I sense that the hon. Lady might have accepted my earlier point that my reference was actually to the £50 de minimis rather than the time limit. She has now introduced another argument, which she prosecuted during her opening remarks—that somehow we should not have a difference in the amount of time to investigate such matters pertaining to whether they are offshore or onshore-related. The whole crux of what we are doing rests on the, I think, fair belief that offshore transactions are less transparent. Those situations are more complicated and often involve dealing with different jurisdictions and intermediaries in order to establish the information that is required for HMRC to carry out its duties. That lies at the heart of why there should be a longer period for offshore entities than for those that are onshore.
Anneliese Dodds
I was talking about the application of a de minimis. I was trying to say that, if the Government were looking, for example, to extend the investigation period for domestic tax affairs beyond the existing time limits, they might even wish to consider a de minimis of £50. I was cognisant of the de minimis—my confusion was caused by the Minister’s remarks. He seemed to suggest that having a de minimis only in relation to offshore tax affairs and not to domestic affairs would be peculiar. We are talking about a de minimis only in those cases of that very long period, not in relation to general tax affairs. I would never say that we should have a de minimis on tax generally, which would mean that we could not pay tax on anything—VAT and so on. That is not what I suggested at all.
Mel Stride
This is probably a discussion for another day, in the sense that the hon. Lady is asking that, in the event that we revisit the issue of the time limits for onshore investigation, we should on that basis consider her amendment anew, because it might dispense with the different treatment between onshore and offshore. We might come to that in another world on another occasion, in another Finance Bill.
I am anxious to make progress—the hon. Member for Bootle sits there looking like he has got all day, but we have to make progress. Amendments 141, 142 and 143 on clause 79, and amendments 144 and 145 on clause 80, would require the Government to review the impact and effectiveness of the clauses within six months of the passing of the Act. Such reviews, however, would not have the intended effect: no data in relation to the characteristics of persons affected, the revenue effects of the changes, or the effects of the changes on incentives on persons to comply, will be available after six months. That is because it is unlikely that a full assessment of any relevant cases will be conducted within the six months after Royal Assent. Thus a report would likely be impossible or meaningless.
On that basis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman
If the Minister writes to me with the comments about retrospectivity, it may be that we will not press our proposal to a Division on Report, but I will not press it now in anticipation of receiving that letter.
Anneliese Dodds
I appreciate the Minister’s remarks, but we believe there is still an anomaly, and we remain concerned about the potential treatment of elderly taxpayers and so on. We will press our amendments to the vote.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 139, in clause 79, page 53, line 28, at end insert—
‘(7A) But an assessment under subsection (2) may not be sought by the Commissioners unless they are satisfied that the liability to tax is in excess of £50.’—(Anneliese Dodds.)
This amendment establishes a de minimis threshold for the extended time limits of £50.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to move amendment 146, in clause 81, page 55, line 39, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the Commissioners have issued guidance on the conditions necessary for an officer of Revenue and Customs to be satisfied that the requirement for security is necessary for the protection of the revenue (for the purposes of the provisions of regulations made in accordance with the duty in subsection (2)).”
This amendment would require the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to issue guidance on how it is determined that security is necessary for the protection of the revenue.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 147, in clause 81, page 56, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this paragraph unless the Commissioners have issued guidance on the conditions necessary for an officer of Revenue and Customs to be satisfied that the requirement for security is necessary for the protection of the revenue (for the purposes of the provisions of regulations made in accordance with the duty in sub-paragraph (2)).”
This amendment would require the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to issue guidance on how it is determined that security is necessary for the protection of the revenue.
Amendment 148, in clause 81, page 56, line 44, at end insert—
“(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by this section on the construction industry and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of the provisions of Clause 81 on the construction industry.
Clause 81 stand part.
Anneliese Dodds
The overall aims of the clause appear sensible, providing HMRC with powers to make secondary legislation to require a person to provide security for corporation tax liabilities and construction industry scheme deductions that are or may be liable to HMRC. Under the clause, failure to provide security when required will be a summary offence and a person who has committed it will be subject to a fine.
As I understand it, securities may be required where a taxpayer has a poor compliance record, and in phoenix-type cases where a business accrues a tax debt, goes into liquidation or administration and the person responsible for the operation of the business sets up again, with the risk of running up further tax debts. Sadly, we have seen far too many of those cases.
The measure is effectively an extension of HMRC’s powers to require security in relation to some areas of business tax—the powers it has currently—to include VAT and PAYE, as well as national insurance contributions, insurance premium tax and some environmental and gambling taxes.
The Government maintain that the clause will be specifically targeted at the minority of businesses that seek financial gain from non-compliance with their tax obligations rather than those that are genuinely unable to pay. They argue that it will not affect those who are managing their debts with HMRC under agreed time-to-pay arrangements with which they are complying—we have touched on that subject previously.
The Government argue that the power will apply only where an HMRC officer considers that the provision of a security is necessary to protect revenue. None the less, we believe that the changes merit further scrutiny, and therefore have tabled a number of amendments.
Amendment 146 seeks to introduce a requirement for HMRC officials to issue guidance on their use of securities to protect revenue. It is a probing amendment that seeks to clarify the circumstances under which a security will be requested for revenue protection. We do not in principle object to the measures being taken to protect revenue—they appear essentially sensible—but we seek to understand better the scope offered to HMRC officials in making such a judgment or, conversely, the guidance they are offered by the Department in making such a decision.
Will the Minister clarify what guidance will be offered and undertake to publish it later? After all, in the Government’s consultation, the feedback was pretty clear. The feedback document stated:
“Most respondents wanted to see clear guidance put in place to support the introduction of the securities and ensure that securities will only be used where it’s appropriate and proportionate to do so. Two thought that legislation should be expanded to provide the rules under which the securities regime should operate.”
How have the Government responded to that point? It is clear that more transparency is needed.
With amendment 147, which follows the previous one, we are likewise seeking to determine what guidance HMRC commissioners would receive. As I said, we do not object in principle to the use of securities to protect tax revenues; we simply seek to understand how and when they will be applied and whether the guidance is determined by Government policy or subject to the discretion of officials. I hope the Minister will either provide that information to the Committee or accept our amendment, which would ensure that further information is provided before these powers are enacted.
The policy papers relating to the clauses suggest that that is necessary. They state:
“Experience from the existing securities regime has shown that, when used in a carefully targeted manner, securities can be very effective in changing the behaviour of non-compliant businesses and protecting future revenues against the risk of non-payment. Currently these powers apply only to certain taxes and duties.”
We need to understand how these powers will be targeted and which criteria will be used. I hope the Minister will respond to that reasonable request.
Through amendment 148, we seek to understand how the new measure will affect the construction industry. As I said, this is an extension of the security deposit legislation to the construction industry scheme and companies chargeable to corporation tax. The documents on the impact of the policy do not discuss the construction industry in detail. The expectation should be that anyone avoiding tax should pay, but it is clear that providing a security could reduce capital stock in some companies, so we need a sense of the impact on those who may be required to pay a security. Again, that was reflected in the Government’s consultation, which stated:
“Several respondents commented specifically on the implications for insolvency and commented that HMRC should give careful consideration in cases where viable businesses were struggling financially and a security could force the business into insolvency. Similarly, respondents did not want the use of securities to limit the rescue environment for financially distressed businesses. One respondent suggested that before extending the security deposit regime, HMRC should commission independent research into its current approach and the effect that demands for a deposit have on struggling businesses.”
The context is that HMRC has lost a large number of its experienced staff, who might have had expertise in security regimes in relation to other taxes. Therefore, we need to know what the impact is likely to be on businesses that may have to deal with HMRC officers who have less understanding of the construction industry than previously would have been the case.
Finally, I note that we are informed by the tax information and impact note that HMRC will need to make changes to its IT systems to process the new security cases. The cost of the changes is estimated to be in the region of £840,000. It will also incur operational costs currently estimated to be in the region of £5 million. Those costs seem fairly high to me. I hope the Minister will explain why they are of such a significant magnitude.
Kirsty Blackman
Very briefly, if the Labour party chooses to press these amendments to a vote, we will support it, because we think that what it is trying to achieve is very sensible.
Anneliese Dodds
In the light of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Resolution of double taxation disputes
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 82, page 58, line 9, leave out from “section” to “may” in line 10.
This amendment provides for all regulations under the new power to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Kirsty Blackman
I will come to amendments 137 and 138, but first I would like to speak briefly to Labour amendments 149 and 150.
We have seen the complete and total shambles over the past 24 hours—and not just over that period, but over the past two years. The past 24 hours have highlighted where we are in relation to EU withdrawal. Various people are suggesting that no deal is more and more likely, so it is incredibly important we know the potential effects of any changes that the Government propose to make to legislation in the event of a negotiated deal or no negotiated deal. We have a clear idea of the effect of retaining the status quo, which is the Scottish National party’s preferred position, and the revenue effects would be much easier to calculate. We are comfortable supporting Labour’s amendment 149 on that subject and amendment 150, which is about the expected revenue effect of the regulations.
I turn to the two SNP amendments. Amendment 138 is consequential on amendment 137, so I will focus on amendment 137. Given what has happened in recent times, trust in the Government is possibly at its lowest ever point. We are being asked to agree to give the Government power to make changes without going through proper scrutiny procedures. The Government are basically asking us to trust them, and we feel that we cannot trust pretty much anything they say right now, so more scrutiny is sensible.
When people who support leave talk about the European Union referendum and Brexit, they talk about taking power away from faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and returning it to Parliament. A lot of the legislation that is being considered just now does not return that power to Parliament in any meaningful way, and it does not allow Parliament proper scrutiny of the range of things that could come through. We are talking here about just one small area, but that problem has been highlighted in a huge number of things that have come out of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There is massive concern from members of the general public, who now understand what Henry VIII powers are—we are in unprecedented times. There has been a power grab from the Scottish Parliament, and this is one more small thing the Government are trying to do to take power away from where it should sit.
Given that the Government cannot command a majority in the House; given that they folded on SNP amendments to the Bill—that was, clearly, because the SNP amendments were wonderful, rather than because the Government did not have a majority—and given that they cannot get legislation through, the level of Executive power needs to be tested. We need to make the Government use their majority if they want to get powers through the House, rather than relying on the fact that because they are the Government, they can do what they like. That is why the SNP has tabled amendment 137, which would require the Government to ensure that more of the regulations made under clause 82 go through the proper scrutiny procedure, rather than relying on the Treasury to make some of them without proper scrutiny.
Anneliese Dodds
I will speak briefly to the clause. The hon. Lady has set out the SNP’s reasons for tabling amendments 137 and 138. The official Opposition agree with those reasons, and it seems highly sensible to require regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have argued for that consistently in relation to our future relationship with the EU and the no deal process. We are concerned about the wholesale power grab that unfortunately appears to be continuing apace. We would support SNP Members if they decided to press their amendments to a vote.
We have tabled two amendments, and I am pleased to hear that the SNP support them. Under the Prime Minister’s proposed withdrawal agreement, the UK would initially, at least, continue to align itself with EU regulations, but little information has been provided alongside the clause to indicate how the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal would impact on Council directive 2017/1852, particularly if there was divergence later on. Similarly, the Treasury’s policy note offers no guidance about whether the EU’s resolution mechanism would be upheld for all future double taxation disputes in the event of a no deal Brexit.
That is of a piece with the general lack of information about the Government’s anticipated future relationship on tax matters with the EU. I have consistently asked whether we would seek to be a member of the code of conduct group, for example, and I have had no indication of the Government’s views on that matter. With that in mind, the Opposition have tabled amendment 149, which would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the impact of the powers under clause 82 in the event that the UK leaves the EU under a no deal Brexit or under the current withdrawal agreement—or whatever it becomes. It is unclear whether it will be changed or whether assurances will simply be produced in relation to it. Whatever happens, we may or may not be voting on it at some point, hopefully in the near future. Amendment 149 would require the Treasury to offer a clear indication of how the EU’s dispute resolution mechanism for double tax disputes would be maintained, and the likelihood of the different possibilities.
Amendment 150 would require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the revenue effects of the measure. The Treasury policy note states that the measure will raise no revenue and will have no economic impact on taxpayers. That is rather hard to believe, given that even the most benign change to the tax system can have far-reaching and unseen consequences. They may be unpredictable, but surely it would be better to say that than to say that the change will have no impact. The Chancellor would therefore be required to outline in the review the possibility of any unforeseen economic impacts, and the revenues that are likely to be raised from this measure after the Treasury makes regulations to use the powers.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Had we had a meaningful vote today—we are not going to have one—I would have voted with the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North. However, I find it a little strange that those who intend to vote against the agreement should criticise the Government for a no deal Brexit, because ultimately that is not the Government’s position.
There are about 800 statutory instruments for leaving the European Union. About 600 of them are negative, and a hundred and something are affirmative. It is perfectly possible for the Opposition to pick any number of negatives to pray against. If the Opposition have a problem with something, they can pray against it when it appears on the Order Paper and get a debate. There is a remedy for hon. Members’ concerns, but the reality is that so many of these things are modest and technical, and there are more important matters of principle for us to discuss. I do not think we want to spend a lot of time in this Committee or others debating minor, technical issues.
Kirsty Blackman
I do not have much to add other than that I still want to press amendment 137 to a vote.
Anneliese Dodds
Briefly, the Minister referred to TIINs. I wonder whether, for the next Finance Bill, he will commit to ensuring clear linking from the Bill website to the different TIINs so that we can quickly see which one applies to each clause. It has been quite a waste of time having to search for them randomly.
As to the question whether the provisions should be examined using the affirmative procedure or should have to be prayed against using the negative procedure, I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Poole. However, we all know that, when measures are dealt with by the affirmative procedure by default, much greater attention needs to be given to them. That is the reality. Generally, I fear that attention is not always paid to matters that may superficially appear technical but that, when one delves into them, may be discovered to have a concrete impact on different groups. Even with the affirmative procedure, the level of debate on taxation matters has, I would argue, traditionally been quite limited. I note that, for the first time in Parliament’s history, we have recently had votes in relation to tax treaties. I was pleased that we motivated those votes, yet UK tax treaties with other countries have never been subjected to proper scrutiny in the House.
Many matters covered by Delegated Legislation Committees are not purely technical. In fact, this has been talked about by my hon. Friend, who represents Leeds—help me out. [Hon. Members: “Stalybridge!”] I am sorry, I am not great at the memory game. In talking recently about some of the no-deal planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has been talking about the potential for some of those measures to have such a significant impact that the Government themselves are not au fait with it. Given the time allotted, they seem to expect the Opposition to pass them with a rather cursory glance. I am afraid, therefore, that the suggestion that we already have a failsafe system for dealing with some of those significant matters is simply incorrect, so if the SNP presses amendment 137 to the vote, we shall support it. However, we will not press our amendments.
Mel Stride
Perhaps I may quickly respond, Ms Dorries, just to say that on the important matter of the TIINs, and the link from the website, I know that the hon. Lady raised that on a previous clause, and I should be happy to look into it for her. If she has any specific ideas that she would like to put to me in that respect, I should be grateful to receive them.
Finally, on the matter of negative SI procedure, and prayers against such measures, in the event that we have an effective, strong, organised, united and well led Opposition, I am sure that that will not be beyond them.
Question put, that the amendment be made.
Mel Stride
There is no need for consultation on this measure because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it was just putting beyond doubt what has been established practice over a very long period. He raised the issue of retrospection. The measure is retrospective, inasmuch as it is putting beyond doubt the fact that these rates were appropriate in the past. We are just bringing the long-standing practice out of any sense of uncertainty.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the loan charge was retrospective. It is not, because the arrangements entered into under the loan charge scenario were always defective. They never worked at the time when they were entered into, and therefore the tax was due in the past. It is being collected in the present.
Anneliese Dodds
In that case, when advisers advised individuals to undertake these schemes, were they promoting illegal schemes? It would help to have a clear answer on that.
Mel Stride
They were in many cases promoting schemes that did not work and were defective, and in many cases promoting schemes that had been taken through the courts by HMRC—and, in a case involving Rangers football club, through the Supreme Court. On each occasion, they have been found defective.
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister says those schemes were defective; is he saying that they were illegal?
Mel Stride
I am saying that the schemes were taken through the courts and were found defective; they were found not to work. As this is the third exchange between us, let us be clear about what lies at the heart of the way in which these schemes operate. If as an employer I said to an employee, “Instead of paying you normal earnings, from which you would pay your national insurance and your income tax—as the employer, I would pay the national insurance—I will pay you by way of a loan. You and I know it is not really a loan, as there is no intention of you ever repaying it. I may well send that loan to an offshore trust”—as many of these schemes do—“before sending it back to you. The consequence is you pay no, or next to no, tax, because it is treated as a loan, not earnings or income.” That lies at the heart of these schemes. That model never worked, and the schemes were always defective at the time they were entered into.
Anneliese Dodds
However, those taxpayers who are required to face the loan charge have been told that they have done something illegal. I am asking the Minister whether those who advised them to undertake these schemes were advising them to do something illegal, because the advisers have not faced anything as a result of this, whereas the taxpayers have.
Mel Stride
The enablers and promoters of those schemes have been subject to various pieces of legislation, going back a number of years. In almost every Finance Act, or every year, there has been legislation clamping down on them. They are subject to a penalty of up to £1 million as a consequence of that kind of behaviour. Where they have acted inappropriately, the legislation is there, and HMRC has the powers to pursue them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88
Regulatory capital securities and hybrid capital instruments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Anneliese Dodds ExcerptsThursday 6th December 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 December 2018 - (6 Dec 2018)
Clive Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The point has not been lost on many people, including in my own city of Norwich, where some people are part of a court case against the Government on this issue and on others relating to climate change. It is something that many people are concerned about, especially given the impact on very young children, who are often lower to the ground and closer to the fumes. I welcome the point my hon. Friend has raised.
This issue is directly relevant, because an element of VED revenue take, including the extra amount raised by the clause, is ring-fenced to provide a fund of about £500 million for air quality. Londoners are contributing to this, in common with the rest of the country. The Government have allocated about £255 million of that funding for clean air zone implementation and another £220 million for the clean air fund, including supporting measures to soften the impacts of clean air zones on the poorest and on small businesses. They also allocated an extra £20 million to £25 million in the Budget for city air quality measures.
London, however, is excluded from all that funding. The Government previously said that this is because London received a generous air quality settlement in 2015 under the then Mayor, who is now better known as the failed former Foreign Secretary. Frankly, that is an absurd claim, and I hope the Minister will not stretch his credibility by repeating it to the Committee today. In reality, the Government reduced the revenue grant by a far greater amount than any extra funding for air quality, reducing it from £700 million to nothing in this financial year. The Mayor’s office received no air quality funding from the Government as part of the last comprehensive spending review. Unlike other cities, London is not getting help to implement the ultra low emission zone, and nor can the Greater London Authority access the mitigation funding to help small businesses and low-income people in other cities to meet new vehicle emission standards. That is perverse.
In addition, that predates the changes to VED, which Londoners are contributing to, and ignores the fact that, quite frankly, the current London Mayor has far greater ambition on air quality than his predecessor did. London is introducing the first, biggest and most ambitious clean air zone—the ultra low emission zone—on 8 April 2019. This is an essential part of the national air quality plan to achieve compliance with our legal obligations.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Is my hon. Friend aware that my city, Oxford, is due potentially to be the first city in Europe with a zero emissions zone? We need more support for such initiatives from the Government—more than has been forthcoming up to this point.
Clive Lewis
Yes, I was aware of that. Labour local authorities in Oxford and across the country do fantastic work on the issue, but they often do so in isolation and with limited support from central Government. The Government should really be getting behind them, given the severe impact that poor air quality can have, not just on children, but on all of us—it is now believed to be connected to the onset of Alzheimer’s and other degenerative diseases.
The London Mayor has proposed a targeted scrappage scheme that uses camera data to ensure that only vehicles that are regularly in the ultra low emission zone receive scrappage funding. The proposal meets the criteria set out in the five-case model in the Treasury’s Green Book and has a positive business case ratio.
Will the Minister confirm that none of the general VED revenue will be spent in London, because the Treasury plans to give it to Highways England to maintain strategically important roads outside London? Strategically important roads in London are maintained by Transport for London without any Government support or a share of VED income. Frankly, I suspect that any assessment made under our amendments would reveal that money is available from the proceeds of VED, which of course will rise under the new rates proposed in clause 57. I am also confident that any assessment under amendment 111 would show that reducing harmful emissions in London is vital to our national effort on climate change and air quality, let alone the fact that it would address the suffering of ordinary people in our most congested city.
It is fair to say that there is a strong suspicion that the Government’s political refusal to support Londoners owes more to Londoners’ refusal to support them at the ballot box than to the best interests of the city or the country as a whole. If the Minister wants to dispel that impression, will he clarify what share of VED revenue comes from London now and what share he expects to come from London after the passage of the Bill?
Clive Lewis
I am pleased to be speaking—again—to our amendments relating to clause 58, on vehicle excise duty and taxis capable of zero emissions. The clause seems to rectify an obvious mistake made by the Treasury during the 2017 Budget, which saw electric vehicles fall into the luxury vehicle segment of the new VED regime for cars costing over £40,000.
VED rates are based on carbon emissions, and zero-emissions vehicles below £40,000 have a zero standard rate and a first year rate. Standard rate on zero-emissions vehicles above £40,000 is currently £310 a year for the first five years. To include electric vehicles in that policy was clearly a major oversight by the Treasury in last year’s Budget. The correction, although somewhat late in the day, is none the less welcome and, indeed, essential if we are to seriously encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, specifically taxis.
Anneliese Dodds
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that back then, Opposition Members warned about the potential unintended consequences of those measures, including for the private hire and taxi industries. Those warnings were not heeded at the time. It is rather frustrating that they have only now been dealt with.
Clive Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point; that is one lost year of support.
To include electric vehicles—ah, I have already said that. I will recap, though. [Laughter.] To include electric vehicles in that policy was clearly a major oversight by the Treasury in last year’s Budget. The correction, although somewhat late in the day, is none the less welcome and, indeed, essential if we are to seriously encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, specifically taxis.
That is particularly pertinent as local regulations are tightening around clean air and greenhouse gas emissions, as we have seen with the implementation of the ultra low emissions zone in London. Amendments 112 to 114 require the Government to undertake a review that we believe is essential to understand the consequences of the clause, which range over the impact that it is likely to have on the Exchequer, on the taxi and private car rental industry, and on CO2 emissions and climate change targets. Amendments 112 and 113 focus on the economic impact of the clause, both on the Exchequer and on taxi and private car rental companies. Can the Minister provide an assessment of the revenue implications of the measure?
Similarly, while we understand from the published documents relating to the clause that industry response to the Government consultation was supportive, will the Treasury do further analysis of the potential economic impact on taxi companies and the private car rental industry, should the change come into effect? The Minister may wish to resist the amendments, but regardless of any legal obligation, will he commit to conducting such an analysis and presenting it to the House in due course?
Amendment 114 refers to carbonisation and improving air quality. It would seem, in that respect, that taxis are low-hanging fruit. They are used frequently, often in urban areas with poor air quality. Similarly, according to the Mayor of London, drivers stand to benefit from lower fuel costs—by around £2,800 a year—and from avoiding present and future congestion and air quality charges. We believe, however, that the Government have failed to put in place necessary fiscal incentives to encourage the transition to the electric vehicles needed to ensure a reduction in CO2 emissions. Simply removing the excess tax for luxury vehicles, as the clause would do, does not go far enough to encourage the uptake of zero-emission vehicles.
The primary driving forces behind the reluctance to take up electric vehicles are cost and an anxiety about range. The costs of electric vehicles are explained by high manufacturing costs, specifically of their batteries. The anxiety about range affects taxi drivers far more than private vehicle owners or private car hire companies, as they do not have access to the range in the ultra-low emissions vehicle segment of the market for mid-range to luxury. That is due to licensing conditions, as they need to fulfil accessibility requirements. In London, for example, that means that many drivers are mandated to buy a London-style hackney taxi in many districts. Will the Minister agree to assess the impact of clause 58 on CO2 emissions and the UK’s climate change targets, and whether that policy goes far enough in encouraging the purchase of zero-emissions taxis?
I have a few questions on the clause. At present, a grant of £7,500 is available for new zero-emissions taxis. We believe that the Government should be looking to increase available grants and encourage the transition to electric vehicles, specifically taxis, in areas outside Greater London. There are currently only a few limited pots of funding, not all of which are available for taxis, and they are largely skewed towards Greater London.
Similarly, the Government have yet to invest a penny of the £400 million charging fund announced in the 2017 Budget, half of which should be public money, with the other half contributed by the private sector, as we have already heard. Will the Minister tell us whether the issue that the clause seeks to rectify will aid the Government in finally setting up the charging fund that they promised to deliver to encourage the use of zero-emissions vehicles? Will he give us a clear timetable of when that fund will be operational? Will he commit that he or another relevant Minister will come back to the House with more detail when it is due to launch?
Available charging infrastructure is a requirement of accelerating the transition. Outside London and a few select places, availability is poor. Drivers face a postcode lottery that is a barrier to electric vehicle growth. For example, there are more chargers available in the Orkney Islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby and Hull combined. Even if grants are available, drivers in some areas will be unable to perform their work using EVs, due to the unavailability of charging infrastructure. It could therefore be argued that even if the Government increased grants and ensured that availability, poverty of EV infrastructure would mean that a majority of taxis would not be in a position to benefit from the change suggested in clause 58. Will the Minister comment on that? What assessment has been undertaken of the availability and adequacy of the infrastructure, and what steps are being taken to ensure that it does not undermine the good intentions behind the clause? Although the current situation is a mistake, it should not have happened in the first place. The measure is important in seeking to undo the bias created by classing zero-emissions taxis as luxury vehicles, and in encouraging the uptake of zero-emissions vehicles.
We will support the clause—we ask only that the Government assure us that the right analysis will be done to assess the impact of the measure on the Exchequer, the companies that will be affected, and the environment. We urge the Government to take such matters into consideration. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance on those points.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Eighth sitting)
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(5 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Lewis
It is a very good point in the sense that the hon. Lady cannot not come down here—I understand that. It is not such a good point about breaking away from the United Kingdom, and independence. However, we understand that she has to make the journey for work purposes.
It is a small minority of people who have to work in the way that the hon. Lady does, but many people now talk about the use of new technologies, and there may come a time, in the near future, when a holographic image of her could be here to represent her constituents. That may soon be upon us—who knows? We have been talking about the impact of technology.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for being willing to give way. He will probably remember that I asked for the concrete ways in which Government are engaging with international partners around that convention. I have not received any concrete details aside from the general aspiration to change things. Can he provide some details now?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady and I discussed this in a Westminster Hall debate earlier in the year. I believe I wrote to her afterwards to set this out, but perhaps she was not satisfied with the response. I am happy to revert to her with more information, but I made the point in that letter that the UK Government are committed to this, and we play a leading role internationally in discussing the future of the Chicago convention. As I also set out in the letter, several of the leading aviation nations—including the United States and Australia—have limited interest in changing the current regime, which makes it rather difficult to make the kind of progress that I suspect she would like us to make.
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister is being generous in giving way. It might help the Committee to know what meetings the Government have called, which Governments they have contacted to discuss the matter and what public pronouncements they have made on the subject. I have been unable to find evidence of any.
Robert Jenrick
I will write to the hon. Lady again to set out some of the information. I discussed the matter with my officials in preparing for this Committee, and they listed some of the international meetings they have attended, where they represented the United Kingdom exactly as she would like us to have done.
I hope I have addressed amendment 104 in my earlier comments. This is a matter that the Scottish Government could take forward themselves, given that we have already legislated for the devolution of APD. The impacts of any future reductions in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Government, and they will clearly become more so once we proceed to the long-term arrangement that the hon. Lady wishes for.
The changes being made by clause 60 ensure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards the funding of our vital public services, raising £3.4 billion a year. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Robert Jenrick
Like the hon. Gentleman, I get all the glamorous jobs, so I will endeavour to answer all his questions about landfill.
Clause 64 increases the standard and lower rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from April 2019, as announced in Budget 2017. Landfill tax has been immensely successful. Since its introduction, the amount of waste disposed of at landfill sites has fallen by more than 70%—of course, we would like to go further—and the benefits of that reduction are twofold. The first is to the economy: we have made better use of scarce resources rather than simply tipping them into holes in the ground across the country. Secondly, greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing waste are reduced. When waste is diverted from landfill, we promote more sustainable waste treatment, such as recycling. We are committed to moving towards a more circular economy, and we are working together with business, industry, civil society and the public to achieve that valuable aim. Landfill tax is an important fiscal lever that we can use to achieve it.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Government are not doing more to meet their recycling target. The Government are very committed to meeting the target of recycling 50% of household waste by 2020. Through the Waste and Resources Action Programme, we are providing guidance and support to local government to help it to improve recycling services and to communicate with householders so that they recycle more. The next milestone in our campaign is the upcoming resources and waste strategy, on which we at the Treasury have been working closely with the Environment Secretary and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That will outline a number of further measures to increase recycling across the UK.
The hon. Gentleman and others will have noticed other important measures in this regard, including the announcement of a forthcoming consultation with respect to a deposit return scheme and other measures in the Budget—for example, a plastic packaging tax, which is to be consulted on, with the aim of increasing the amount of recycled content in all the plastic packaging that we use in our daily lives.
Landfill tax continues to provide an incentive to reduce waste from landfill and ensure it is recycled and reduced: as landfill is the most expensive form of waste disposal, that makes perfect sense. We have also noted in the Budget that we would be willing to consider a future incineration tax once further infrastructure has been put in place to reduce, for example, the amount of plastics that are incinerated, further improving the environment and reducing the amount of throwaway single-use plastics.
The waste infrastructure delivery programme is providing some £3 billion in grant funding over its lifetime to a number of long-term local authority waste management projects, which has helped to increase recycling rates from 36% in 2008 to 45% in 2017. I hope the hon. Member for Norwich South will await the future resources and waste strategy, which will provide a number of important measures. Those will include further information on the reform of the producer responsibility system, which will play a crucial role in improving recycling capacity and infrastructure in all parts of the country.
The clause also changes the tax on disposal at landfill sites. Each tonne of standard-rated material is currently taxed at £88.95, and lower-rated material draws a tax of £2.80. Those rates per tonne will change to £91.35 and £2.90 respectively from 1 April 2019, which maintains the strong current signal to move waste away from landfill.
Amendment 130 would require a review of the revenue effects of the proposed changes. HMRC published tax information impact notes when the rates were announced at the autumn 2017 Budget.
Anneliese Dodds
As far as I understand it, that note did not look into the impact of differential tax rates on waste crime. The picture is very worrying: the number of illegal waste sites that the Environment Agency is dealing with had risen to 1,485 at the end of 2017-18, compared with 1,425 the previous year. The number of those illegal waste sites that were active had also risen—to 673—and there were eight fires at those sites last year, so why is the Minister not considering those factors? Surely a broader review is necessary.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady raises an important question about waste crime, which affects many constituents across the country, including my own. We have taken a number of significant steps. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has conducted with the Home Secretary a review of waste crime, which looked at many of these questions—I believe that review was published recently. We also included a measure in the Budget whereby local authorities, or those responsible for clearing up illegal waste sites, could receive support from the Treasury to enable them to do so if the site met certain criteria, essentially providing support equivalent to the cost of the landfill tax itself. A number of hon. Members from across the House approached us to ask for that support, and we have delivered it as a £10 million pilot.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. However, in the previous Budget, landfill tax was applied to illegal waste sites, so surely that measure is more than a pilot. As I understand it, it came into practice in April this year, because I have been trying to find out whether or not it has been applied to any sites. Surely that money should already be coming into the Exchequer?
Robert Jenrick
Perhaps I did not explain myself correctly to the hon. Lady. The measure that she speaks to was in the Budget last year, and has since been implemented via a statutory instrument that went through the House. That measure ensures that the landfill tax is payable on illegal waste sites. The measure that we have included in the Budget enables innocent parties—local authorities that take on, and wish to clean up, a site that has been left by criminals—to apply through the Environment Agency as part of the pilot for a sum of Treasury funding equivalent to the landfill tax, instead of having to pay that tax in addition to all the other costs involved in cleaning up the site. We hope that that will help local authorities with sites that are among the worst and most dangerous to public health to meet the costs of doing so. That measure was requested by a number of Members from across the House.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again. Surely Committee members are scratching their heads and thinking, “Would it not be more efficient and effective just to fund the Environment Agency properly so it can actually do some prosecutions, rather than going through this very complex system?”
Robert Jenrick
We do fund the Environment Agency correctly, and it is stepping up its enforcement of these sites. We urged it to do so—that was part of the purpose of the waste crime review. We have also increased the powers available to local authorities. For example, since May 2016, they have been able to issue fixed penalty notices for smaller scale fly-tipping. Fly-tipping is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £50,000 or 12 months’ imprisonment. We wish to see more successful prosecutions, because this is a significant area of criminality that is linked to serious organised crime and other important types of criminality, such as the drug trade and human trafficking, against which we wish to take serious action. That is why fly-tipping was included in the Government’s review of serious organised crime in the waste sector, to which I have already referred.
Amendment 131 seeks to review the effect of these changes on the Government’s ability to meet the waste framework directive target of recycling 50% of waste by 2020, and amendment 132 seeks to review their impact on the amount of waste exported for treatment abroad. As the clause maintains the rates of landfill tax in real terms, we do not expect significant changes to the strong behavioural incentives the tax already provides. Landfill tax continues to play an important role in our meeting our targets for recycling and encouraging alternative forms of waste treatment, and the clause will ensure that landfill remains the most expensive form of waste treatment. Furthermore, I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to meeting the 50% household waste recycling target through the Waste and Resources Action Programme and the upcoming resources and waste strategy, on which we at the Treasury worked extremely closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope the Committee sees that amendments 131 and 132 are therefore unnecessary.
Amendment 133 would require a review of the expected effect of these changes on the quantity of waste that is sent to landfill. The uprating of landfill tax rates in line with the retail prices index ensures that those rates remain stable in real terms, and means that the tax can continue to help the Government meet their objective. Figures published regularly—annually, I think—by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show a consistent decrease in the amount of waste sent to landfill as a result of increases to the capacity of alternative waste treatment, such as recycling, which is encouraged by our policy on landfill tax rates. As the clause will keep the rates the same in real terms, that decrease is expected to continue. I trust that provides the Committee with sufficient information, and I ask that amendment 133 not be pressed to a vote.
Amendment 134 would require a review of the expected impact on the environment of increasing the difference between the standard and lower rates of landfill tax. The clause seeks to increase landfill tax rates in line with inflation. That is the equivalent of maintaining the rates in real terms, which means there will be no real-terms change to the difference between the standard and lower rates. Although we appreciate there may be concerns about illegal dumping or breaking of the rules, we do not anticipate the clause making any material difference to those. The issues the hon. Member for Norwich South legitimately raised about individuals or companies dumping waste on which the higher rate should be paid, and seeking to pay the lower rate, are exactly the kinds of matters that were considered in the waste crime strategy. I hope that reassures the Committee, and I ask that amendment 134 not be pressed to a vote.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
The central point is that if someone is UK tax resident, their income is taxed, albeit that some of it may occur in other jurisdictions and perhaps be subject to double taxation arrangements between that jurisdiction and our jurisdiction. None the less, my hon. Friend’s assumption is correct that if someone has a property overseas, it is effectively counted as if it were a domestic property in the context of this clause. The easements that the clause introduces in terms of greater time to put in an application for a rebate at the higher rate apply equally whether one of the properties is overseas or here in the United Kingdom.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister explained, the clause would change the parameters for claiming a refund on the additional dwelling SDLT by quadrupling the time that claimants have to reclaim the funds, potentially for up to a whole year after they have sold their old home, if that is later than a year after the filing date for the SDLT date for the new home—so the second parameter stays the same, if that makes sense. It is quite a complex change to understand.
The “major interest” provision is also tightened to make it clearer that a major interest in a dwelling includes an undivided share in a dwelling for the purpose of the higher rates for additional dwellings. I understand that the Government have suggested that the extended time period is necessary to enable those who might find it difficult to claim to do so—for example, those who are elderly or vulnerable due to serious illness.
In principle, the changes do not water down the Government’s initial stated commitment to charge additional SDLT for those owning additional properties, provided they are held on to for more than three years and provided that they fall outside the multiple dwellings category, which I will come back to in a moment. None the less, given that the changes appear to be focused on the context for the provision of additional dwellings, as against continuously occupied single dwellings, we feel it is necessary to subject their effectiveness to review, in order to ensure that they do not water down the initial measure in any way. That is what new clauses 10, 11 and 12 ask for.
Sir Robert Syms
I suspect that there are a lot of people with holiday homes abroad who do not realise that when they buy a property, they have to pay a higher rate of stamp duty land tax.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful for that intervention. Furthermore, presumably it would be relatively difficult for the Exchequer to assure itself that that additional purchase had happened. This seems like quite a bureaucratic system, but I am sure the Minister can explain to us exactly how it works and how it is ensured that it is processed properly.
It would also be helpful to consider the measures in relation to the actions advocated by Labour, including enabling local authorities to treble council tax on empty properties after they have been empty for a year. Although the Government have shifted a little in this area recently, councils unfortunately still have to wait 10 years—an incredibly long time—before they can levy that level of premium.
We also need to consider the impact of these measures on house prices, which, as the Minister intimated, is demanded by new clause 12. There is a desperate need for action to level the playing field for those seeking housing for their families to live in continuously, as against those seeking a holiday home. Here again, the Opposition seek to place a surcharge on second homes that are used as holiday homes, based on council tax banding, which could raise £560 million a year to help tackle homelessness, as well as helping to level the playing field between those who can afford additional homes and those trying to take their first step on to the housing ladder. We surely need to understand the impact of the clause in relation to other potential measures.
Finally, while I have the chance, I inform the Minister that when one uses a particularly well-known search engine to try to find the very exciting HMRC stamp tax manual, it unfortunately finds the versions from 2010 initially, rather than more up-to-date versions. That surely needs to be ironed out.
Mel Stride
Clauses 44 and 48 will simplify and strengthen the current financial institution resolution regime by introducing an automatic exemption from stamp taxes on shares for public bodies and creditors whose interests are converted into shares, and stamp duty land tax—SDLT—for certain transfers of land arising from the exercise of resolution powers.
Under the Banking Act 2009, the Government have the power to exempt from stamp taxes on shares and SDLT transfers of property, in the form of shares or land that arise from an exercise of resolution powers. However, the current legislation requires the Government to pass secondary legislation exempting a defined set of transfers. This introduces potential timing challenges and creates additional complexity when resolving a failing financial institution.
The changes made by clause 48 avoid that by specifying exempt transfers in primary legislation. The stamp taxes on shares exemption will be limited to transfers of shares to a bridge entity or a public body that holds the shares temporarily while the institution is being resolved, and to the transfer of shares in exchange for temporary certificates issued to creditors that demonstrate their entitlement to the shares. The exemption does not cover the private sale and transfers of shares in a failing institution to a private sector purchaser, where stamp taxes on shares will be charged as usual.
Similarly, the changes made by clause 44 specify SDLT transfers in primary legislation. This exemption will be limited to transfers of land to a bridge entity or public body that holds the land temporarily while the institution is being resolved. The exemption does not cover the private sale and transfer of land of a failing institution to a private sector purchaser, where SDLT will be charged as usual.
The changes will simplify and strengthen the process of resolving a failed institution. In the event that a creditor is found to be worse off as a result of resolution action, when compared with an ordinary insolvency, they are entitled to compensation, which would be paid by the Treasury. The changes will protect taxpayers by reducing the risk of the Government having to compensate creditors in order to prevent the “no creditor worse off” principle being violated. They were announced in the autumn Budget 2017 and the draft legislation was subject to consultation. Officials from the Treasury and HMRC have worked closely with officials from the Bank of England to develop the legislation.
Turning to the amendments that have been tabled, amendment 90 seeks a review, within three months of the enactment of the Bill, of the viability of establishing a public register on the use of the exemption from stamp duty—something that I have already raised—and would require a report of the review to be laid before the House of Commons soon after its completion. The clauses do not create any tax exemptions for failing institutions themselves. The exemption would apply to creditors of failing financial institutions who see their debt holdings bailed in for equity, to ensure that affected creditors are not penalised inadvertently. The exemption also applies to the Bank of England, which may, in certain circumstances, need to take temporary ownership of a failing institution’s assets, in order to protect financial stability.
The clauses will strengthen and add transparency to the resolution process by providing further clarity for affected creditors and the taxpayer. The register would impose an additional and unnecessary burden on the Bank of England and provide no great benefit to the public. By creating an exemption from stamp taxes on shares and SDLT for certain transfers arising from the use of resolution powers, the Government are simplifying and strengthening the UK’s resolution regime, and I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. As he intimated, clause 44 ensures that SDLT is not charged on transfers of land following the exercise of certain resolution powers under the special resolution regime. It is paralleled by clause 48 for stamp duty. As he has intimated, our amendment 90 would require the Government to produce a review and potentially introduce a register of financial institutions in resolution that might benefit from the exemptions for SDLT and stamp duty for certain financial transactions resulting from the measure.
We are asking for such a review to have a clearer understanding of which firms might be relieved of SDLT and stamp duty in this manner. This is without prejudice to the function of the clauses, which we understand and support. In other words, we support the concept that the Bank of England should be able to use its resolution stabilisation powers to manage failing financial institutions in an orderly manner and should as part of that, where required, be able to transfer property, potentially including land held by that body, to a temporary holding entity appointed by the Bank of England or to a temporary public body. In that context, we agree that it does not make sense for SDLT or stamp duty to be paid. We are willing not to press our amendment, because of the general acknowledgment of the importance of the measure.
Mel Stride
Taking up the points made by the hon. Member for Oxford East, I will begin with her final point about why we have approached this by way of primary legislation rather than relying on existing powers to make regulations. At the heart of that is our ability to act quickly in the circumstances of the resolution powers being brought into effect, to ensure that everything goes smoothly and we do not end up in a situation where compensation might be due, where it could be shown that the measures we had taken had not been as effective as they might otherwise have been under a normal insolvency process. That is why relying on a general position in primary legislation would be preferable to a number of exercises of secondary powers.
The question of why we have made changes to the Finance Act 2003 rather than the Banking Act, and the associated question that the hon. Lady asked about whether the Office of Tax Simplification was content with our approach, are highly technical and certainly not questions to which I have a ready answer, I am afraid. I undertake to the Committee to go away and ensure that I write to the hon. Lady with a full explanation on both those points.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Changes to periods for delivering returns and paying tax
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 45, page 29, line 19, at end insert—
“(11) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this section.
(12) A report of the review under subsection (9) must be laid before the House of Commons within two months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in Clause 45.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 13—Equality impact analysis of provisions of section 45—
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the equality impact of the provisions in section 45 in accordance with this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income,
(b) the impact of those provisions on people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),
(c) the impact of those provisions on the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and
(d) the impact of those provisions on equality in different relevant parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.
(3) In this section—
“relevant parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England, and
(b) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.’
This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effects of Clause 45 on equality in relation to households with different levels of income, people with protected characteristics, the Treasury’s public sector equality duty and on a regional basis.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to be serving on this Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Dorries; I do not think I have said that before, and I apologise for that.
This clause reduces the time limit that purchasers have to file an SDLT return and pay the tax due from 30 days after the effective date of the transaction to 14 days. It applies to transactions to purchase land in England and Northern Ireland with an effective date on or after 1 March 2019. Of course, since 2015 there has been a separate land and buildings transaction tax in Scotland, and since earlier this year there has also been a different regime in Wales, where the relevant tax is the land transaction tax.
SDLT was introduced—we were just referring to the relevant Act—in 2003, replacing stamp duty on land transactions. Data from SDLT returns are used by a variety of actors, after being submitted to the Valuation Office Agency, to carry out activities such as valuations for the purposes of council tax and business rates.
This clause obviously has some similarities with clause 14, to the extent that it requires a faster turnaround for the payment of a tax, but clearly in this case it is payment of SDLT rather than capital gains tax. Many of the concerns expressed in relation to that change also apply in this case. They include the question whether taxpayers and, above all, their agents are likely to be sufficiently aware of the new deadline. As a result, with amendment 95, we are asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
“lay before the House of Commons a report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this section.”
It appears that many taxpayers—some 85% of them, according to HMRC’s figures—already submit their return in line with the proposed new timetable. However, the remaining 15% may have reasons for failing to submit so quickly and those surely should be examined before we embark on this halving of the deadline. Indeed, there appeared to be significant concern among respondents to the consultation about the proposed reduction to the filing and payment window. The consultation response stated:
“Many felt it would be manageable for straightforward transactions—for example most purchases of residential property. Many envisaged difficulties for more complex transactions where the property purchased is subject to leases. Although only a small proportion of reportable transactions are likely to be affected, they amount to approximately 50,000 transactions every year.”
That is clearly a very large number, and those transactions may be particularly concentrated in their effects among certain segments of the population. It is for that reason that new clause 13 would require a full impact assessment of the measure to be undertaken and to consider its impact on people with protected characteristics, people with different incomes and people living in different regions.
I note in the consultation document that, at least at the time of the consultation, there was no HMRC facility for filing and paying SDLT simultaneously. It would be helpful to understand from the Minister whether that facility is coming, as it would surely make the system more efficient.
I was also surprised to see in the consultation document that more than 40% of the returns submitted on paper included errors. That is an incredibly high rate. It would be helpful to know what has been done to deal with that problem, as that system clearly cannot be helping either the taxpayer who has—presumably inadvertently, most of the time—made the error or the HMRC officer who has to try to rectify it. The very high usage of cheques, which need to be accompanied by the correct 11-figure unique taxpayer reference number, also seems almost designed to create an inefficient and error-ridden system.
It was stated in the consultation document that the shorter timescale would be accompanied by a number of other measures to improve the effectiveness of SDLT filing, but it is unclear to me whether and when those new measures are coming into place. One such measure would be requiring all agents to file online, which does seem sensible, but I was intrigued to see in the consultation document the claim that online filing may not be
“reasonably practicable…because of remoteness of location, or on grounds such as religious beliefs.”
It would be helpful if there were more joined-up thinking across Government. For example, it is very difficult for claimants of universal credit to receive it without using the online system. Surely more of them are likely to be affected by living remotely than professional agents involved in property transactions. It would also be useful if the Minister could clarify why religious faith might impact on an individual’s ability to use the internet and why that might be the case for those filing returns for stamp duty and not for those attempting, for example, to claim universal credit.
It was stated in the Government’s response to the consultation that they would look to potentially introduce electronic payment at the same time as the reduction of the reporting period to 14 days, so can the Minister please inform us whether electronic payment will indeed be available when this measure comes into play?
Mel Stride
Clause 45 makes changes to improve the SDLT filing and payment process. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question about whether we will provide facilities on the site to pay simultaneously, we do not have plans to do so. That is because the online service cannot be combined with Bacs and CHAPS services at present.
The hon. Lady made a more general point about the mistakes that are made in filing. As she knows, we consulted on the information being sought as part of the process, and we will be applying various simplifications as a consequence, most notably around complex commercial lease arrangements. The information that we have hitherto sought in that respect will now no longer be sought. That simplification, and others, should be beneficial in cutting down the mistakes that the hon. Lady referred to.
Currently, the purchaser of land, or the purchaser’s agent, must make a stamp duty land tax return and pay tax due within 30 days of the effective date of the transaction—usually the completion date. The changes made by clause 45 will reduce the time allowed to make an SDLT return and pay the tax due from 30 days after the effective date of transaction to 14 days. That is in line with other initiatives in recent years that bring tax reporting and payment closer to the date of the transaction. The hon. Lady referred, I think, to clause 14 on capital gains tax, where a similar approach has been taken. This is in line with these other initiatives.
The measure will not change liabilities for the purchaser, but will lead to tax being paid earlier. The change applies to purchases of land situated in England and Northern Ireland where the effective date of the transaction is on or after 1 March 2019. This change will directly affect approximately 20,000 businesses, mainly agents, such as licensed conveyancers and solicitors. Each year, this will directly affect fewer than 500 individuals who file their own SDLT returns without using an agent. However, the impact on administrative burdens for businesses is expected to be negligible.
The Government announced the change at autumn statement 2015 and consulted on it, as the hon. Lady described, in 2016. The Government confirmed at autumn Budget 2017 that it would come into effect on 1 March. To help purchasers and agents to comply with the new time limit, HMRC has worked with key representative bodies to agree simplifications to the SDLT return, for example, by reducing the amount of information required. These improvements will be in place when the new time limit begins. The measure will result in a yield of £60 million in 2018-19—the year of implementation—and a small ongoing yield in future years.
Amendment 95 would require a report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this section.
Mel Stride
HMRC will, as a matter of course, issue guidance on all major tax changes, and that will be available online. As part of the consultation, as I have outlined, a number of these organisations were consulted in detail, not just about the measures but to make sure that those businesses are ready and appropriately informed.
The amendment is not necessary. I can give the Committee the information it requires now, because it is already in the public domain. The Government published a document on 20 March 2017 in response to the consultation that we published in the autumn of 2016, and we published draft legislation in July 2018 for technical consultation. HMRC also held meetings with stakeholders, which included representative bodies from the property and conveyancing industries. Their views on the information required in the return are reflected in the changes being made to make compliance with the new time limit easier.
New clause 13 would require a review of the equality impact of clause 45. The new clause is not necessary either, because the Government set out in the tax information and impact note published on this change in July 2018. It is not anticipated that there will be any impact on groups with protected characteristics. Clause 45 does not change anyone’s SDLT liability; it just brings a requirement to file a return and pay the tax closer to the date of the transaction. For that reason, direct impacts on different types of households will be negligible, and the type of analysis required by the amendment would not be meaningful.
Regarding other regions of the UK, Land and Property Services in Northern Ireland—an agency of the Department of Finance of the Northern Ireland Executive—was consulted and is content with the measures. The changes will improve the SDLT filing and payment process, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. However, I am sure the whole Committee is looking to the Government to ensure that the payment and reporting systems can be calibrated as soon as possible. Surely, the very high rate of error is a terrible waste of taxpayers’ and, indeed, HMRC’s time. I hope he prioritises sorting that out and having the relevant discussions with the Bacs and CHAPS systems so it can be dealt with.
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 49, page 33, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (4) insert—
‘(5) Within three months of the passing of the Finance Act 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall review the revenue effects if—
(a) the provision of section 49(2) of that Act had not been made, and
(b) the exemption under subsection (3) of this section did not apply to a Schedule 2 SIP that was not approved between the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the Finance Act 2014 and the passing of the Finance Act 2019.
(6) A report of the review under this subsection (5) section shall be laid before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.’”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects if the tax exemption under section 95 of the Finance Act 2001 had not applied to self-certified share incentive plans.
Anneliese Dodds
The clause makes a minor change to ensure that existing stamp duty relief continues to apply to both non-approved and approved share incentive plans. Our amendment 91 calls for a review of the revenue effects of that measure compared with the status quo, under which only approved plans are covered. The amendment is intended to give us a better handle on the overall cost of SIPs and how that relates to their benefits.
As I am sure Committee members know, SIPs have been tax advantaged since 2001, when stamp duty and what was then stamp duty reserve tax—it is now SDLT—were removed from the transfer of shares in a SIP from trustees to an employee. The requirement for approval was removed in 2014, but the appropriate corrections to legislation were not made. I note that the changes in the clause are required purely because of errors of omission back then, which perhaps highlights some of the issues the Committee has discussed.
SIPs avoid many of the problems with other share incentive plans, not least by being provided to all employees rather than only to a subset. We have seen how share plans have been manipulated when they have been provided only to the top management of companies. SIPs avoid that. Although so-called free shares can be linked to the achievement of performance targets, they cannot be allocated individually. They can be provided only to a particular business unit or to the whole company, so they cannot be manipulated by, for example, very top management.
Some categories of shares can be removed from employees who leave the firm through either voluntary resignation or dismissal within three years of their joining the SIP. That and the stake that SIPs create for employees in their company are viewed by some commentators as positive aspects of the plans. In addition, there is a considerable cost saving for firms of up to £138 for every £1,000 invested in SIPs by their employees. We must acknowledge, however, that the people who gain most from such schemes are those who are already in a higher-rate tax band, who by my calculation gain around an additional third of the tax they would otherwise pay, compared with a basic rate taxpayer.
In addition, SIPs have complex interactions with the social security system. I want to ask the Minister for clarification in that respect. Information provided to SIP holders states clearly that a small number of people may be affected by the fact that, because of their salary sacrifice—I suppose in practical terms that is what this is—for their SIP, they will not have paid enough national insurance contributions to qualify for particular benefits. However, it is unclear whether contributions to a SIP are treated differently for tax and social security purposes.
Some claimants of tax credits have received mixed messages about whether contributions to SIPs should be added back on to their gross pay for the purpose of informing the Department for Work and Pensions about their income. Individuals do not have to declare their SIP contributions for the purpose of income tax, or at least those contributions generally are not chargeable to income tax. There is a peculiar and potentially unfair difference there.
That is compounded by the fact that tax becomes payable on some of the different types of shares within a SIP if an individual sells them within five years—for example, if they have to switch jobs. Some individuals have said that that is almost a form of double taxation for people who claim social security. They suggest it is a bit of an anomaly, and I can see why. For people affected in this way, they would be better off buying their firm’s shares at market prices rather than taking part in a SIP in the first place. That is the situation with tax credits, but I cannot find any information anywhere about the treatment of these schemes for those claiming universal credit.
I looked at the IR177 document “share incentive plans and your entitlement to benefits” but that was produced in January 2011, and there seems to have been no amendment of it since then. There does not seem to have been any amendment to the SIP manual relating to universal credit either, or at least not since November 2015. Having gone through all the iterations of the manual, I did not wish to waste any more time searching for a potentially non-existent needle in a haystack.
Will the Minister clarify whether contributions to SIPs are counted as income for the purposes of calculating working tax credit or universal credit? If so, will the Department be looking at this issue? Might it be trying to devise a different approach, given that individuals will be affected by the counting of those shares as income if they leave a SIP scheme early? People on low incomes may well have to switch jobs more regularly than others do, so it would be helpful if he looked into that. Perhaps he knows the answer already. If not, will he write to us? Some people would find that enormously helpful.
Mel Stride
On the hon. Lady’s specific question about the interaction of SIP contributions and the reporting of income, and the further interaction with working tax credits and universal credit, I do not know the answer, and I do not think my officials can immediately answer it. I will have a closer look at that and write to her, as she requests.
Clause 49 makes a minor correcting amendment to section 95 of the Finance Act 2001 concerning stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax exemptions for SIPs. Stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax exemptions for SIPs were introduced in the Finance Act 2001. Until 2014, share incentive plans had to be approved by HMRC before an employer could operate them. These were referred to as approved share incentive plans. The Finance Act 2014 removed the requirement for HMRC to approve share incentive plans and replaced it with a self-certification process. All references to approved share incentive plans should have been removed from legislation, but a change to section 95 of the Finance Act 2001 was omitted. The clause changes the wording of section 95 of the Finance Act 2001 to ensure that it is consistent with other provisions of the share incentive plans code. No taxpayers should have incurred stamp duty on self-certified SIPs since the rule changed in 2014, and this provision confirms and clarifies the position. No changes are made to the existing exemptions available for share incentive plans.
Amendment 91 would require a review of the revenue effects if the stamp duty exemptions for SIPs had not applied to self-certified share incentive plans from 2014. This provision is a minor technical change that brings the wording of the legislation back in line with its application. There will be no revenue impact as a result of the correction. SIPs offer a combination of tax incentives to employers, and estimates for the cost of the stamp duty exemptions for SIPs are not available. The clause makes a minor correcting amendment to exemptions for share incentive plans, and I commend it to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am willing to withdraw amendment 91, given the Minister’s clarification, and I am grateful for his willingness to write to me about the issue that I raised. I make the general point that it is important that we consider these interactions between the social security system and the taxation system. It is particularly important for people on low incomes that we always bear that in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Duty of customers to account for tax on supplies
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 50, page 33, line 11, at end insert—
“(9B) An order made under subsection (9) for the purposes of subsection (9A) must be accompanied by a statement by the Treasury of the expected impact of that order on—
(a) the number of traders who are expected to benefit from the reduction of a burden, and
(b) the supply chain in respect of the description of goods or services.”.
This amendment would require an order made under the new provision of Clause 50 to be accompanied by an impact statement.
Mel Stride
Clause 51 and schedule 16 make changes to ensure that we can properly collect VAT when purchases are made using vouchers. It amends the Value Added Tax Act 1994, introducing new section 51B, 51C and 51D and new schedule 10B. These clarify the VAT rules for postage stamps and set out new rules for the VAT treatment of vouchers issued after 1 January 2019.
Members of the Committee will be familiar with tokens—for example, those used in the purchase of books—but the world of vouchers has expanded significantly in recent years. The UK vouchers market is now estimated to be worth about £6 billion a year. As well as the traditional use of vouchers as Christmas presents, vouchers now play a large part in business promotion programmes and staff incentive schemes, which rely heavily on complex distribution systems using electronic, plastic and internet-based products, as well as the traditional paper voucher. Some businesses issue and redeem their own vouchers, whereas others issue vouchers to be redeemed by others. VAT law has been slow to adapt to these changes. This new law modernises the rules and introduces a simpler system.
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister is extolling the virtues of vouchers and noting how innovative many of the company schemes that use them are, but why are the Government still committed to removing individuals’ capacity to benefit from childcare vouchers?
Mel Stride
I think that issue may be outside the scope of the clause, tempted though I am to be drawn into the issue of childcare and vouchers. The hon. Lady will have noted the delay that we implemented in that respect, to make the transition that little bit easier for some of those who might have been impacted.
The clause transposes new EU law, which we pressed the European Commission to introduce, to help combat tax avoidance. The new law has to be in place by 1 January 2019 and the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 will give the measure effect until Royal Assent of this Finance Bill.
From a VAT perspective, vouchers are unexpectedly complex. That is because, for one payment, a buyer gets two things: a voucher and an underlying good or service. Without special rules, we risk taxing twice: once for the voucher and a second time for the underlying supply. Gift vouchers could be used to buy products with different VAT rates. It is therefore often difficult to apply VAT at the time the gift voucher is bought. Furthermore, gift vouchers are now often sold at a discount to the face value, via distributors to businesses, which give them away for free in business promotion or staff incentive schemes. It is then not always clear to the shop accepting the voucher exactly what has been paid.
Finally, trading vouchers across borders resulted in problems of double and non-taxation, as different countries have different rules. The changes made by clause 51 and new schedule 16 will standardise these rules. First, the legislation specifies the type of voucher covered. Quite a few things nowadays look similar to vouchers, but are not recognised as vouchers under the VAT system—for example, the type of card many of us store money on to go on holiday or give to our children. We are not talking about vouchers that are totally free from when they are issued to when they are used to buy something, such as discount vouchers found in magazines or toothpaste money-off tokens.
The legislation identifies two distinct types of voucher and sets out specific VAT treatments for each. If we know what the voucher can buy and where, that can be charged at the point of issue and at any subsequent transfer of a voucher through its distribution network. If these details are not known at the time of issue, because it is a general gift voucher, we must wait until it is used to be able to apply the correct VAT. Therefore, the law identifies single-purpose vouchers, such as a traditional CD token that can be used only to buy CDs, which are limited to specific products, and multi-purpose vouchers, such as a WHSmith gift voucher, which can be used to buy many things,.
To avoid charging VAT twice, single-purpose vouchers are subject to VAT throughout distribution, but no VAT is charged on redemption. In contrast, multi-purpose vouchers are VAT-free through distribution, but are subject to VAT at redemption. For the multi-purpose voucher, the redeemer—the shop—must account for VAT. If they know the amount paid for the voucher, they should account for the VAT on that value. If they do not know the amount paid, they should account for VAT on the face value of the voucher.
Because the activities of any distributor of multi-purpose vouchers are disregarded for VAT purposes, there will be certain restrictions on the extent to which they can reclaim VAT incurred on related costs. I hope that the Committee is following this very closely, because it is an extremely important series of elaborations on how these vouchers work. HM Treasury and HMRC have consulted with the relevant businesses represented, and HMRC will be clear in guidance on how the rules will work.
The two new clauses would require two reviews by the Government within three months of the passing of the Act. New clause 8 concerns the impact of the provisions on the circulation and distribution of vouchers in the UK and the EU. New clause 9 concerns potential revenue and other impacts that could arise if UK law were to diverge from EU law.
Collecting VAT when vouchers are used is always complex, and it will inevitably take some time for the new rules to bed in. Throughout the negotiations about the changes in the underlying EU law, the Government were in regular contact with the UK businesses affected by the changes, and it was generally felt that this option was the best of the various options identified. Officials have worked hard with businesses to ensure as smooth a transition as possible, and HMRC has offered to be pragmatic as businesses get to grips with the new system.
I can reassure the Committee that the Government will continue to monitor the effects of the change and other developments in this area, including impacts on revenues. With regard to divergence from EU law, it is far too early to consider such impacts, given that we do not yet know the future agreement with the EU and what it will look like in respect of the VAT system more generally. However, I stress to the Committee that a key advantage of this measure is to ensure a level playing field across the EU, so that UK businesses are not disadvantaged by different rules in other EU member states, which they would need to understand and which could result in double taxation or—in terms of Exchequer impact—no taxation at all. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the new clauses, and I commend the clause and schedule 16.
Peter Dowd
It leads me to believe that the Government have not paid enough attention. That is why we want to have a look at it in the round and why we want a review. Let us see the evidence. If the evidence indicates my hon. Friend’s contention, as I think it will, we would need to do something.
Unfortunately, despite the move to begin to increase duties on wine and cider as set out in clauses 53 and 54, it seems that the Government’s policy on wider alcohol duties reflects continuation rather than a break with the last eight years. Will the Minister confirm that it remains the Government’s policy to increase only those alcohol duties included in the clause and to freeze all those not included? That being the case, does it not seem that the attempt in clause 54 to increase the price of mid-strength cider is a mere sticking plaster on the Government’s wider policy of ignoring the harm to the public’s health caused by cheap alcohol? In other words, when it comes to applying this approach across all duties, it seems that they bottled it. Could it be that they choose to grab a quick Budget headline once a year instead of taking an evidence-based approach to alcohol harm like that adopted by the last Labour Government?
I question the logic of creating an additional rate of duty to ciders up to only 7.5% alcohol by volume. A cursory look at the white cider market suggests that many of the products that the Government seek to make more expensive are currently listed at exactly 7.5% ABV, which is the upper band of the new duty applied by the clause. Clearly, while those ciders would be covered by the new band of duty, it would take only an additional spoonfull of sugar, as the saying goes, to push them up to 7.6% ABV, which is currently covered by the higher rate of duty that is applied to so-called high-strength ciders. Would it not have been a better approach for the Government simply to reduce the lower band of excise applied to higher-strength ciders to ensure that that duty instead applied from 6.9% ABV all the way up to 8.8% ABV? Will the Minister expand on what logic has been pursued by the Government and whether it might incentivise the industry to take more decisive action to reduce the strength of their white ciders or begin to diversify their products?
Amendment 97 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of clause 54 on the cider industry. The point is to see how far the Government have tried to work with industry to develop and implement a more public health-oriented approach to their products while minimising the impact such an approach has on the industry.
Anneliese Dodds
Is my hon. Friend aware that there used to be a differential regime for small-scale cider producers, whose product was often of far greater quality than the kinds that are often linked to alcohol overuse? That no longer exists, partly because of changes at EU level. Surely we need to know more from the Government about what they are doing to support that part of the industry as well as clamp down on the production of very high-volume, high-alcohol product.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point and I am sure the Minister was listening. What have the Government done to work with producers to transition to less harmful products while protecting jobs and livelihoods? That could provide an opportunity for the industry to move into other cider products—perhaps those not so reliant on glucose and corn syrup and using the cheaper pomace, all of which presumably add to the negative health effects. I hope the Minister will speak to the work that the Government are getting on with in that regard.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Third sitting)
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
I assure the hon. Gentleman that in these tax matters—as with all tax matters—given our firm commitment to honour our climate change commitments, we are in regular contact with car manufacturers and those producing electric vehicles, through my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary.
As with all policy changes, the fiscal impact of the measure will be monitored by HMRC, and the Office for Budget Responsibility may request for it to be reviewed as the new out-turned data becomes available. The fiscal impact on taxpayer compliance has been considered and is included in the overall costing of the measure. HMRC publishes annual updates to its tax gap analysis, which will reflect the effect of capital gains tax policy changes. I therefore urge the Committee to resist the amendments and I commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Howarth. I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory comments and for his comments on our amendments.
As the Minister explained, the clause and schedule extend, from 6 April next year, the existing capital gains tax requirements in relation to reporting and payment for non-UK residents who are disposing of UK property, in order to include new interest that will henceforth be taxed. They also introduce, on the same date the following year, reporting and payment-on-account obligations for residential property gains for UK residents and UK branches and agencies of non-UK resident people.
The measure has been quite a long time coming. Back in 2015, the Government signalled their intention to introduce from April 2019 the requirement that capital gains tax on gains from selling or disposing of residential property be paid within 30 days of the disposal being completed. As the Minister intimated, that will be a payment on account towards the person’s tax liability for the tax year in which the disposal is made. However, the measure was deferred until 2020, and the consultation on it undertaken earlier this year, as the Minister mentioned. As I understand it, there is already a payment-on-account scheme for non-UK residents, so these measures will just extend that approach to UK residents, as well as expanding the range of taxable interest for non-UK residents.
We have tabled two amendments. Amendment 31 would delay commencement of the provisions in paragraph 3 of schedule 2 until the Government have released further details of HMRC’s consultation with representative bodies concerning awareness of those provisions among those who may be covered by them. The rationale for the amendment is that the proposed measures, as we have just discussed, introduce a new payment-on-account scheme for capital gains tax on residential property that requires filing of a return far earlier than is currently required, and far earlier than the potential 22 months to which the Minister referred, right down to 30 days after the disposal of that property.
During the consultation on the proposals, some respondents expressed their concern that taxpayers, not expecting that they needed to make such a return until the end of the tax year, might fail to inform their accountant and thus miss the deadline. Of course, in doing so they would incur interest on non-payment. Our amendments would enable details of HMRC’s discussions with representative bodies to be asked for in order to ensure that potentially affected taxpayers were forewarned of the new measures and therefore did not fall foul of them and incur that interest on non-payment.
I understand why respondents to the consultation might have been concerned by that. Their responses were summarised in the consultation response document as concerning the fact that
“taxpayers may not be aware of the new rules until after the end of the tax year when they tell their accountants about their disposals, resulting in late filing penalties.”
Some of those making that argument pointed out that HMRC charges interest for those filing late, set at 3%. That, of course, contrasts with the repayment interest of 0.5%. I completely understand why there is a difference in rates, but that difference surely adds some grist to the mill of needing to ensure that all potential taxpayers are definitely made aware of the change. After all, 30 days is not that long a period within which to act.
The Government’s response to the consultation maintains that where information needed to be obtained from third parties for the purposes of calculating the capital gains tax that should be accommodated within the periods required for marketing and conveying any such property, and that estimated declarations could be corrected later, as the Minister mentioned. I am a little concerned by some of the ambiguity in the language used in the consultation response about what will happen if a taxpayer cannot make the payment on time. This is a question not of the amount of tax owed, but of the calibration of when it will be paid.
Sir Robert Syms
Another slight problem is that when someone is selling a property, it is not unusual for them to renovate it or do some work on it. When they report their CGT liability, they offset their legal fees, builders’ fees and other fees. The 30-day reporting window is quite tight. With my solicitor, I tend to get a bill long after I have forgotten that I owe it.
I am sure the Minister will pick up on this question when he sums up, but is the 30-day period just for reporting the possibility of CGT, or is it for reporting the actual figures? It is quite a tight period to collect all the bills, work out the profit or offset the allowance and pay the right amount, given how people do business in this country.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful for that intervention, which underlines the fact that in practice some of the calculations may be relatively complex. The response to the consultation sets out the Government’s view that in practical terms it should normally be possible for those involved to come up with the appropriate figure, but if not, an estimate would be acceptable.
While the hon. Gentleman was making his very relevant point, I was wondering whether there might be room for people to proffer a low estimate, which would obviously have a financial benefit, and then correct it later on. Will HMRC genuinely have the capacity to understand whether such an estimate was bona fide—as he says, evidence such as relevant bills may not have been fully available at the time—or whether it was intended to reduce liability? I agree that a specific reply from the Minister to that pertinent point would be helpful.
Clearly, in this case the length of time for any deferral of capital gains tax beyond the 30-day period, up to 22 months, would presumably need to be quite a bit shorter than the length of time we are talking about in relation to time-to-pay agreements. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that and whether his Department will be setting out criteria similar to those I have just mentioned for time-to-pay agreements to guide HMRC on this matter. Were these matters covered in the existing consultation that occurred with interested parties and just not reported in the Government’s response?
Amendment 32 would require a review of the effects on public finances if the provisions in this schedule were introduced from 6 April 2019. It would require the Secretary of State to
“lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act”.
We believe that the amendment is necessary—first, because from what I can see there are two effective start dates in the schedule and it is quite unclear why; and secondly, because we need to understand the anticipated impact of the measures to a greater degree than is surely possible with the information supplied to us.
We have already had a little discussion about the payment on account system. Arguably, it enables the smoothing of outgoings for individuals and individual businesses, and of revenue for HMRC, so to that extent it can help with financial planning. However, we are surely talking about quite a different process when it comes to the payment of capital gains tax. We are not talking about someone who is self-employed, who is very unlikely to have payment just in one big lump sum; it is likely to be in a number of different sums or continuous payments.
One could argue there is more of a rationale for payment on account in those regards than potentially here, aside from the fact that these measures will ensure more security of revenue for HMRC. Surely they could potentially have a revenue impact because, as the hon. Member for Poole mentioned before, without this 30-day limit individuals could be keeping that sum, effectively earning interest on it and paying it later.
I appreciate what was said about the interest rate being low now, but that will not always necessarily be the case. Surely it would be useful for us to have a review on the effects on public finances of these provisions, as requested in amendment 32. Amendment 33 from the Scottish National party pushes in the same direction, so we also support that.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford East; we are also happy to support the Labour party’s very sensible amendments.
Our amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances and on reducing the tax gap of the changes made to capital gains tax in schedule 2. In 2016-17 the income tax, national insurance contributions and capital gains tax gap was 4.2%, or £13.5 billion—quite a significant amount of money for a Government to be short-changed on. It seems only sensible, then, that the Chancellor informs us of how he expects these changes to impact that tax gap. That would enable us to have a record of what the intentions are and what he expects to be the conclusion.
Only then can we coherently and clearly assess whether the measure is working or not. Especially given how unpredictable the current future is with Brexit and things, it surely only makes sense to put this stuff down in writing—“Here’s what we think is going to happen”—so that we can then assess it. Ultimately, it cannot hurt to be more transparent, so I urge the Government to accept the amendment.
Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Howarth; I am sure the Committee has taken note of your guidance. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole that there is another aspect to that, and while 30 days is 30 days—not a year or more as has been the case under current arrangements—there are two points that I will make.
One is that, clearly, there is typically a moment of exchange before property transfer completes, which is an additional period of time in which paperwork is brought together. The second point is that, to the extent that it is not possible to immediately complete the information with absolute certainty within the 30 days—perhaps because of third-party valuation issues, for example—it is possible, as I said earlier, to have a balancing arrangement further on down the line in the future. That could work either way: the Revenue might owe the individual money or vice versa. That is facilitated within the arrangements.
I point my hon. Friend to the HMRC website where, should he have any more specific questions about how CGT operates, there is a user-friendly interface. He can put in all the numbers and variables, and the website will provide him with the answers.
The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the time-to-pay arrangements. Clearly, where tax is due, the Revenue takes a measured and responsible approach towards those who find it difficult to pay any tax, perhaps for reasons of personal financial difficulty or otherwise. I know from conversations that those at a senior level at HMRC have always been very keen to ensure that it operates in a sympathetic and responsible manner to negotiate the very difficult line between being sympathetic, responsible and helpful, where appropriate, and equally, making sure that we are all treated the same and that, where tax is due, individuals and companies actually pay it.
Another point that has been raised is HMRC capacity. The premise of those concerns is the assumption that, to a significant degree, the changes might generate lots of additional work for HMRC. I suspect the contrary, for the reasons that I have given. If, when the capital gain is crystallised, there is a shorter period for people to hand in the paperwork as required, it means that they will get on and do it, rather than delaying and discovering that, as a consequence, they have to contact HMRC to get involved in negotiations and discussions.
On the overarching point about HMRC and capacity, as the hon. Lady will know, we have of course invested an additional £2 billion in HMRC since 2010. We have 24,000 individuals or full-time equivalents in HMRC who are focused on tax collection. The total head count of HMRC, which stands at around 70,000, is the highest that it has been for some years. I commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. We on this side do not oppose the measures and are willing not to press our two amendments to a Division. I will, however, make two points. It would help if the Minister provided some information on the criteria that would be used by HMRC for adopting deferred arrangements with individual taxpayers. Such criteria exist for time-to-pay arrangements, but none has been set out in relation to this clause, so it would be helpful to know what they are. I agree with him that there needs to be a balance between sympathy and responsiveness, to enable people to pay the tax that is due. On the other hand, there is the matter of equal treatment.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend has been doing remarkable work on making connections with the representative bodies, and visiting offices all around the country. My constituency has about 2,700 members of HMRC staff. There seems to be incongruity between what the Minister says about capacity and resource in HMRC and my experience from speaking to my constituents. Does my hon. Friend feel the same in that regard?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I do agree. Certainly judging by the conversations that I have had in a number of different parts of the country where the consolidation programme for HMRC is occurring, there is enormous concern, particularly about the expertise that is being lost by HMRC in some very important areas.
I would hazard the argument, relating this to the previous point, that when one is talking about, for example, tax officials having appropriate discretion to offer slightly different payment plans and so on to individuals, one needs to have experienced staff who can make those kinds of decisions, but we are seeing many such staff leaving. HMRC currently has the lowest morale, I think, among its staff of any Department. That reflects concern about the regionalisation programme, but also about other matters.
As I mentioned, it would help if we were provided with the set of criteria for deciding to apply a slightly different approach and allow latitude beyond the 30 days. It would also help if we were given, perhaps in written form, more information in order to reassure us that, because the window is still open for a balancing payment to be made later, the issue that we were talking about before does not arise.
Obviously, the vast majority of taxpayers will wish to make a truthful and accurate return, but if that process is manipulated, it could default in effect to what we have already, so it would be useful to hear about some of the anti-avoidance aspects of this measure. However, as I said, we are certainly willing to withdraw the Labour amendments.
Mhairi Black
I appreciate everything that the Minister said. However, I think that our amendment is as sensible as it is transparent and therefore I still insist that it be part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 17 and schedule 5 provide that a non-UK resident company that carries on a UK property business will be charged corporation tax, rather than income tax as at present. The provisions will deliver equal tax treatment for UK and non-UK resident companies that carry on UK property businesses. They will prevent persons from using the existing difference in treatment to reduce their tax bill on UK rental property or land through offshore ownership.
Until 1965 all companies were subject to income tax on their profits. When corporation tax was introduced in that year for UK resident companies and for non-resident companies trading in the UK through a UK permanent establishment, other non-resident companies remained chargeable under the income tax rules. From July 2016, non-resident companies that deal in or develop UK land were brought within the UK tax net under corporation tax, but for UK property businesses, two companies, one domestic and one offshore, currently have different rules for calculating tax from a UK property income, even if their property businesses are otherwise identical.
The clause provides for a more coherent and fair tax regime by bringing the UK property business income of non-resident companies into the corporation tax regime from 6 April 2020. The transition will mean that those companies will be subject to the recently implemented policies to combat tax avoidance, including the corporate interest restriction, hybrid mismatch rules, carried-forward income loss restriction and the carried-forward capital loss restriction announced at Budget 2018. The businesses will now be taxed at the corporation tax rate and, in combination with clause 24, they will be eligible for the loss relief rules available to companies and groups. The latest estimate by the Office for Budget Responsibility is that the changes will raise £365 million over the next five years.
Amendment 39 would require the publication of a register of named individual non-UK resident companies who are charged corporation tax rather than income tax as a result of the measure. The Government do not identify specific individuals or companies that are brought within the scope of particular tax charges, and it would be inappropriate to do so. Amendments 35 and 38 would require a review of the impact of schedule 5 on corporation tax receipts. The OBR certified impact of the measure on tax receipts is set out in table 2.2 of Budget 2018. It will be updated in table 2.2 of Budget 2019 before the schedule comes into effect on 6 April 2020, so the amendments are unnecessary.
New clause 4 would require the Government to undertake a review of the effects of schedule 5, specifically to consider the effect of not bringing schedule 5 into effect and increasing the corporation tax rate to 26%. If schedule 5 was not brought into effect, non-UK resident companies with income from UK property would remain chargeable to income tax. In that situation, raising the corporation tax to 26% would create a clearly enhanced incentive for companies with a UK property business to set up offshore in order to benefit from paying the basic rate of income tax.
I urge the Committee to reject the new clause, along with the amendments, and I commend clause 17 and schedule 5 to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation of the clause and schedule. As he explained, they set out new arrangements for non-UK resident companies that carry on a UK property business or that have other UK property income. The clause and schedule will shift those companies from the income tax regime into the corporation tax regime. The Government appear to intend the measure to deliver more equal treatment for UK and non-UK resident companies in receipt of similar income, and to prevent those that use the difference to reduce their tax bill on UK property through offshore ownership.
The measures were subject to consultation from March last year and the Government released their response in autumn 2017. In that Budget the Government announced they would make the change in two years’ time, in 2020. I anticipate that in our discussion we will return to some of the themes that characterised our discussion on clauses 13 and 14. The measure seeks to align the treatment of non-UK investors with that of UK investors in the field of real estate. On Tuesday we discussed some of the limitations that the Opposition believes there are with the Government’s approach.
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister is trying to suggest that it would be a great cost, but I made it clear that HMRC would have to compile a list of these individuals anyhow in order to inform them of their tax liabilities. There would not be a collation cost. There may be a cost from other aspects of it, but not from the collation.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is right that HMRC will be privy to the information, but there is a difference between being privy to the information and treating with individuals and companies in terms of their tax return. Collating all that information and presenting it in the form that she envisages is a distinct activity.
I undertake to write to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about the online number that she discovered and the numbers that were provided in the policy document. I wish I was so good that I just knew all the answers and was over the detail to that degree, but I will certainly write to her on that, and on the cost of making the changes to the system. I am happy to have a look at the £160,000 figure that she raised and see how it breaks down.
Mel Stride
I think I am right in saying that over the longer term, in revenue terms the measure is likely to be broadly neutral. The OBR, of course, will only cast out across the scorecard period. It will not analyse the fiscal impacts beyond that, but if the hon. Lady would care to write to me with any questions on that, to the extent that I can answer them of course I will do so.
I commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but we will press amendment 38 to a vote. Although I took on board his responses, I am concerned that we have a lack of clarity about the revenue impact of a measure, which means that as a Committee it is difficult for us to make a judgment on it. When he tried to explain why there might be a negative amount on some projections of the impact in subsequent years, he stated that that was due to the different timing of reporting of corporation tax revenue and income tax revenue. That would explain a difference for one year, but not for subsequent years, so I am still concerned about why there might have been a negative suggested figure into subsequent years.
In addition, it is not clear to me whether the figures that have been set out, whether that is one set or another, take into account the impact of coming within the scope of anti-avoidance measures and so on. That would obviously just be a projection in any case, but we surely need to have more information before we can take an informed view.
Peter Dowd
On a slightly wider but, I think, pertinent point, in the Red Book for this year, corporation tax for 2019-20 is £60 billion and by 2023 it is £66 billion. Does the hon. Lady find that her concerns about this specific thing are compounded by the uncertainty about, for example, the deal we will be debating in the not-too-distant future?
Anneliese Dodds
I agree with my hon. Friend. When we are talking about this sector in particular, we must always bear in mind the impact not only on revenue but overall on investment and the need to ensure that high-quality infrastructure is provided. I know that that is enormously important and something that the Minister is concerned with and working on. For the reasons I have set out, we will press amendment 38 to a vote.
On new clause 4, I say in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that there may be some agreement on some issues, but on corporation tax rates there is a difference to the extent that Labour feels that we need to work with other countries to prevent a race to the bottom. That is something we have already been doing. A race to the bottom is damaging, particularly when many businesses tell us that the corporation tax rates do not drive their decision to locate in the UK; they may be one of a basket of factors, but other matters, particularly sunk costs, are important. Therefore, we are happy for our proposals to come under scrutiny at every point, and we hope that in doing so we might persuade the SNP to come to our view as well.
Kirsty Blackman
To be totally clear—I am sure the hon. Member for Oxford East did not mean this—we do not support a race to the bottom either. Our manifesto position was that we supported no further reductions in corporation tax, which is slightly different from the Labour party position.
In the spirit of trying not to take up too much of the Committee’s time and the fact that amendments 35 and 38 are broadly similar and we have covered the ground of both amendments quite a lot during the course of the debate—although the answers we received could have been clearer—we are happy not to press amendment 35 and to support Labour party amendment 38.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Non-UK resident companies carrying on UK property businesses etc.
Amendment proposed: 38, page 210, line 45 [Schedule 5], at end insert—
“Part 2A
Annual review of effects of this schedule
34A (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake an annual review of the effects of the provisions of this Schedule on corporation tax receipts.
(2) The report of the review under sub-paragraph (1) must be laid before the House of Commons before—
(a) in respect of the first review, within 12 months of this Schedule coming into force, and
(b) in respect of each subsequent review, within 12 months of the date on which the report of the previous review was laid before the House of Commons.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)
This amendment requires an annual review of the revenue effects of this Schedule, in each year following the Schedule coming into force.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the clause and schedule. Colleagues will be well aware that DPT was introduced back in 2015, following enormous pressure from campaigners, the Public Accounts Committee and the Opposition to ensure that large, multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. DPT focuses on two forms of tax avoidance. The first is where
“a company with a UK taxable presence uses arrangements lacking economic substance to artificially divert profits from the UK.”
The second is where
“a person carries out activities in the UK for a foreign company that are designed to avoid creating a Permanent Establishment”
and becoming taxable through that route.
As the Minister set out, the Bill makes a number of changes to DPT. First, the changes attempt to ensure that the rules work more effectively to prevent avoidance arrangements giving rise to planning opportunities from October this year. The changes clarify that diverted profits will be taxed under only DPT or corporation tax from 1 April 2015 onwards; obviously, this is a retrospective tax.
The measures also extend to 38 months the period in which HMRC can issue a preliminary notice stating that it intends to apply DPT in the first category of cases —that is, where taxpayers are believed to be using arrangements lacking economic substance in order to expatriate profits. The Opposition will certainly support that change. As mentioned, however, the measures also extend very substantially—by 25%, from one year to 15 months—the review period for HMRC to work with a company to examine how much profit has been diverted.
Finally, the measures enable the amendment of corporate tax returns to include diverted profits during the first 12 months of the review period, and to allow the inclusion of diverted profits on the corporation tax return of the affected party for the first 12 months of the review period, in cases where a foreign company is believed to have attempted to avoid permanent establishment through artificial methods.
We have tabled a number of amendments to clause 18 and schedule 6. Amendment 45, as was mentioned, would require a public register of firms that have paid the diverted profits tax. Colleagues will remember, I am sure, that when that tax was introduced, it was widely described by the Government as a Google tax. Indeed, journalists were briefed by Government spokespeople using that term. The Minister has argued that DPT is not targeted at any particular sector; that is not how it was described and promoted at the time.
It is not clear to the Opposition whether Google has actually been covered by DPT. Back in January 2016, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained that DPT provided the context for HMRC’s £130 million settlement with Google. Of course, that was announced to great fanfare, but very quickly there was a lot of concern that it was actually a very poor deal for taxpayers, because Google’s settlement with HMRC in January 2016 covered a whole 10 years, from 2005 to 2015, and constituted £117 million in back taxes and £13 million in interest. Fairly obviously, it was not the Google tax, DPT, that led to that settlement, because it had applied for only a twentieth of the time for which the settlement was achieved—just six months of that time. Also, the so-called Google tax had not led to any appreciable unwinding of complex tax structures. Of course, we need to put the £130 million settlement in the context of the then £4.6 billion-worth of UK sales by Google. I appreciate that that is comparing apples with pears, but it does put things in context.
In concluding the deal, HMRC accepted Google’s claim that its UK staff only supported their colleagues in Ireland—something that the PAC discussed at length and which I will not go into here. Suffice it to say that it is contested. Interestingly, that great radical Rupert Murdoch stated that the tax payments by Google were
“token amounts for PR purposes”.
Our amendment is designed to shine a light on which taxpayers have actually been subject to this tax, given the way in which it was presented when it was introduced, so that the public can judge its effectiveness for themselves. It would also provide a first step towards the country-by-country reporting for multinational companies that the Government were forced to accept as a possibility through an amendment to the 2016 Finance Bill, although they have not yet enacted that. They have the power to enact it through that amendment, but have not yet gone ahead with it. This amendment would at least take us a step along the way.
Amendment 40 would require a review of the diverted profits tax against its stated aims; that would include the extent to which it has raised revenue for the Exchequer. It is very similar to amendment 37 from the SNP. The Minister intimated that the revenues coming from DPT were higher than forecast, and that does appear to be the case, but it would be helpful if the Minister could delineate for us the different components of his Department’s assessment of the value of DPT. That is because, as I understand it, there are two components to its reported value: the direct tax take from DPT itself and the additional tax resulting from altered company tax practices. It is not clear to me whether that is just about the extra corporation tax or something else, so perhaps the Minister can illuminate it for us.
It would also be helpful if we could understand why there has been such an increase in the projected number of taxpayers coming under the measure. Anecdotally, many tax practitioners have told me that they do not think that it is necessarily covering the very biggest firms—many had anticipated that it would do so—particularly digital firms, but it is covering a large number of other firms. To that extent, it seems to be quite different from the initial prospectus, so can the Minister explain why, on this issue, George Osborne seems to have got things wrong? I admit that that was not an isolated occurrence, but it would be helpful if the Minister could explain it.
George Osborne, when DPT was introduced, said that it would also act as a catalyst for the restructuring of companies that were seeking to avoid permanent establishment in the UK and to claim false economic substance in low or no-tax jurisdictions to avoid UK corporation tax. We have not, from what I can see, had any evaluation of DPT’s impact in connection to that. I have not heard of many significant changes in corporate structure that can be specifically attributed to DPT. They may well exist, but we need to know about them in order to have an appropriate understanding of the efficacy or otherwise of the measure. That is what is called for in amendment 41. Related to discussion around our previous amendment, if increased tax from alterations in corporate structure is counted as part of the revenue from DPT, surely it is important for us to know what those alterations in corporate structure are in the first place. I think that would be helpful for the Committee.
Amendment 42 requires a review of DPT’s effectiveness as against the Government’s proposed digital services tax—DPT versus DST, as it were. Colleagues will, of course, be aware that DST has not been included in the Bill; it is only being consulted on. Strangely, at the same time as saying that that tax would impel other countries to implement similar provisions by starting a conversation on the merits of novel approaches to taxing digital giants, the tax includes some weaknesses that, it seems to me, do not apply to the European approach. It is set at 2% of revenues, rather than at 3%. It also includes the so-called safe harbour provision, which means that it is not paid by companies that do not indicate that they are making profits. That is exactly how many of them have avoided corporation tax, so how such a measure would catch many of those companies is unclear to me.
Our amendment would ask for an explicit comparison of DPT with DST. That is surely necessary given that they embody fundamentally different assumptions about the appropriate basis for corporate taxation. DPT assumes that transfer pricing is still alive and kicking, and a tenable basis for assigning taxing rights, while DST obviously uses a particular form of revenue as the taxable quantum, rather than profit. That is surely necessary in a context where there are many discussions ongoing at an international level about the appropriate basis for corporate taxation, including whether there should be a greater focus on value derived from branding. I understand that has some support on the US side.
I will briefly describe our two additional amendments in the three minutes that remain. Amendment 46 removes the extension of the review period during which the taxpayer can make representations to HMRC about why its assessment is invalid. Despite what the Minister said, I do not think that we have been provided with sufficient evidence about why that is necessary. If there is a problem with companies providing evidence towards the end of that review period and HMRC is having difficulty crunching that evidence, surely it would be more helpful for those companies to be required to provide the evidence a bit earlier in the process. If evidence being provided later on in the existing review period was causing problems for HMRC, surely that would be one way of dealing with it.
Finally, as the Minister mentioned, amendment 43 would consider the impact of introducing the measures within this specific time period as against another. Again, we feel that we have not been provided with a sufficiently clear rationale for the timing, so it would be helpful to learn more about the implementation schedule set out within the Bill.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I will be brief, as I am conscious that the Committee is moving fairly slowly through the clauses, and we have quite a lot of the Bill still to cover.
The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned the diverted profits tax and the digital services tax. Earlier on in her speech, in a different context, she used the expression “comparing apples with pears”. I think that is what we are doing here, and that lies at the heart of the objection to her amendment.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows that I have a lot of respect for him. However, that was exactly my point: the two taxes are based on a fundamentally different view of what should be taxed. Obviously, a digital services tax would be revenue based, whereas DPT is still profit based, and based on the arm’s length principle. Surely one should therefore compare them in terms of their efficacy at generating tax revenue, preventing avoidance, and so on. The fact that they are different does not mean that it is not legitimate to compare them.
Mel Stride
I understand what the hon. Lady says, but the expression “preventing avoidance”, which she has just used, lies at the heart of the meaningful distinction. DPT is about avoidance, as eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, whereas the digital services tax is not about avoidance at all; it is about reflecting the fact that the international tax regime is no longer fit for purpose when it comes to taxing certain types of digital businesses—those that operate through digital platforms, and that have a relationship with UK users and generate value as a consequence. She mentioned Google specifically, but it covers search engines in general, certain online marketplaces and social media platforms.
The two taxes are so distinct. It is important to place on the record that the digital services tax is not an anti-avoidance measure; it is about redefining the way in which those businesses pay their fair share of tax.
Mel Stride
It is important to review or consider all taxes in relation to other taxes as a matter of course, because they all have their own positive aspects, distortionary effects, negative aspects, impacts on the economy that might not be desirable, and so forth. It is important that we do that for all taxes. I say to the hon. Lady that, in the case of the digital services tax, we are now consulting on the detail of how that might operate should we introduce it in 2020, in the event that there is not a multilateral movement across the OECD or the European Union that allows us to work in conjunction with other tax jurisdictions. In the case of the specific tax that we are considering in Committee, there will be ample opportunity to look at it in the kind of detail that I know she will be keen on.
The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the issue of the split, as I understood it, between the impact of DPT as directly revenue raising through the additional corporation tax that is paid, and the deterrent effect that protects revenues that otherwise would have been avoided. We publish annual statistics that show how much tax DPT raises directly and how much it raises indirectly through corporation tax. This year, we published a detailed note setting out the methodology that was used to calculate the revenue raised by DPT, and I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with either that information or a signpost to where it can be found.
The hon. Lady raised the specific issue of the three-month extension that we have been considering in Committee. She made the point well: rather than extending the period by three months, why do we not stick to 12 months and expect the corporation in question to speed up their process? I think we would still be left with the problem that there would have to be a moment in time when that company could still provide information—HMRC would be required to take it into account—which might be of a very complex nature. It would be very difficult for HMRC to make an immediate and reasonable judgment at the last minute. I think that is what drives the importance of separating the time available to the corporation in those circumstances from the additional time that is available solely to HMRC to conduct its final review without additional information suddenly appearing at extremely short notice. I should also point out that the 12-month process is already an accelerated process, and typically we are—in circumstances where the additional three-month time period becomes pertinent—looking at very complex situations, which take time to consider fully.
On the basis of the extract that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North presented to the Committee, it seems to me that more information could have been given in the explanatory notes to make it absolutely clear what it refers to. I will have a closer look at that outside the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications. I would like to accept his kind offer to share with me and the Committee—I am sure other Members will be interested as well—the information that he referred to, which sets out the different components of DPT. I think that would be enormously helpful.
The hon. Member for Poole seemed to suggest that there would be two reasons for fluctuation across years. I think he used the word “random” to describe HMRC’s choice of which companies to investigate—they could be large or small. I would hope that it would not be a random process, although I am not suggesting he was intimating that. I would hope that it was based on intelligence and that HMRC—I would like it to undertake more of this than it does at the moment—used some of the data sources available to it to drive the process of determining which companies to look at. Hopefully that would not be a source of too much variation.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that there might be variation because it would be, in some way, a reflection of the compliance-mindedness of tax practitioners in different corporations at any one point. Surely that should improve over time, rather than fluctuate. There may be other reasons for the variation, but I feel we still need to have a clear understanding of it.
Sir Robert Syms
My central point is that if HMRC challenges a corporation tax computation, it does not have to do it every single year with the same company, because essentially it will come to an arrangement about what is acceptable—for at least a period of years. Then it can go and look for the next company. I see it as a rolling process in which essentially there is a dialogue between HMRC and the accountants of the companies. Therefore, everybody knows quite where they stand, and perhaps the companies will benefit as well.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful for that clarification of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I suppose on that basis one would assume that the take would go down, if there was truly a deterrent action. It is not clear to me that that has occurred, but it would be interesting to have the analysis and review, so that we could see whether it is so. That is what our amendments aim to do.
I took on board what the Minister said about the review period, but I am a little confused. As I understand it, the additional time provided for the review period in the Bill is not of a different character from the rest of the review period. It is not a question of the additional three months being just for HMRC to deliberate. It is also a period during which the company can provide additional information—so, potentially, they can now do that right up to the end of 15 rather than 12 months. Therefore it is unclear to me that HMRC will necessarily be helped—unless I am missing something, which I may well be.
Mel Stride
To clarify, briefly, it is not as the hon. Lady views it: the additional three months would be solely for HMRC to carry out its deliberations, albeit that up to the 11th hour within the 12-month period further information could be provided by the company.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. It was not completely clear to me from the material provided to us. I underline the points that have been made by the SNP in that regard: it would have helped us to understand the impact of some of the measures if the explanatory notes had included a bit more of the thinking behind them.
In view of what the Minister has said, we are willing to drop some of our amendments. However, we shall want to vote on amendment 40, which is quite similar to the SNP’s amendment 37, and amendments 43 and 46.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Diverted profits tax
Amendment proposed: 46, in schedule 6, page 220, line 2, leave out paragraph 11.—(Anneliese Dodds.)
This amendment removes the proposed extension of the review period to 15 months.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 21, page 13, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the preceding provisions of this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the changes made by Clause 21.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 48, in clause 21, page 13, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, publish a list of additional non-UK resident companies that are classified as having permanent establishments as a result of restricting the application of section 1143 of the CTA 2010.
(8) The list in subsection (7) must be updated annually.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish a list of all additional permanent establishments created as a result of the changes made by Clause 21 three months after the passing of the Act and annually thereafter.
Clause stand part.
Anneliese Dodds
The clause focuses on attempts to wriggle out of triggering permanent establishment status by maintaining that economic activity is preparatory or auxiliary. Currently, certain so-called preparatory or auxiliary activities are understandably exempt from being classified as indicating a permanent establishment. They tend to be of low value and include storing products for the company involved, purchasing goods for it and collecting information for it.
Action 7 in the OECD’s BEPS—base erosion and profit shifting—process included a range of measures to tighten up in the OECD’s model tax treaty section 5, including in this area. The model tax treaty includes a far-reaching anti-fragmentation rule to prevent activities in a jurisdiction from being intentionally, artificially fragmented between different companies in a group merely so that those activities will not trigger permanent establishment status because they can be classified as preparatory or auxiliary.
The OECD rules prevent the preparatory and auxiliary exemption from applying in situations where there is already a permanent establishment in the country, and where the overall activity carried out both by the company concerned and by companies that are closely related to it are not preparatory or auxiliary. In both cases, however, the activities must constitute part of a so-called “cohesive business operation”. In practice, the measure puts into UK law what the UK has already signed up to via its ratification of the OECD’s multilateral instrument for the amendment and updating of tax treaties, which is now sequentially being applied to our existing tax treaties, as we have discussed on a number of occasions just along the Committee corridor.
We seek to amend the clause in a number of ways. First, amendment 48 requires the Chancellor to publish a list of all additional permanent establishments created by the clause, and to do so annually. There is a serious problem of accountability in our tax system. Those who have engaged in tax avoidance are not publicly held responsible. In response to the debate on Second Reading, it looks very clear what tax avoidance is and what it is not. It is behaviour that is legal, but although it may follow the letter of tax law, it does not follow its spirit.
Contrary to what was argued in the previous debate in the Chamber, individual savings accounts do not constitute tax avoidance because their creation was intended and promoted by legislators. On the contrary, artificial arrangements are tax avoidance, because policy makers, whether in the UK or elsewhere—such as for the Dutch and Irish sandwiches—did not indicate that they wished their tax law to be used by those schemes to exploit loopholes.
Relying purely on the spirit of the law or treaties, rather than their letter, leaves our system open to tax avoidance, which is one of the many reasons the Opposition support the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule—not just anti-abuse. We have talked about that in this Committee. In any case, we must understand which firms profited from these forms of artificial fragmentation. Our amendment asks for that.
It is particularly important to have that analysis at a time when the US approach to corporate taxation and determining where permanent establishment lies is in flux. The corporate tax rate in the US is going down, but that problem is compounded by tightening up in a range of areas, including the adoption of many elements of the BEPS process relating to permanent establishments. It is important to assess the efficacy of measures put forward here in relation to what is occurring in the US, where claims have been made that the situation will lead to onshoring of activity. That remains to be seen, but it will be useful to have an analysis so that we can perform that assessment.
Amendment 47 would require a review of the revenue effect of clause 21. It is not possible to judge its likely efficacy without understanding the extent to which it will promote the correct payment of corporation tax. I note that some jurisdictions, such as Argentina, have included what appear to be more stringent requirements in their permanent establishment roles, going beyond the OECD requirements.
It is important that we properly understand the likely impact of the proposed rules. There has been a debate about this issue at OECD level for quite a long period—since about 2013. There are very different views about whether the OECD approach is sufficiently stringent. It is important to listen to some alternative views that were referenced when this particular action in the BEPS process was investigated, particularly from the BEPS monitoring group in 2015. That group is composed of a variety of experts looking at international tax law and a number of civil society organisations—I will not try to pronounce their names because some are in Spanish and I would get it humiliatingly wrong.
In response to a call for evidence in relation to changes in the OECD tax treaty chapter 5, the group maintained that although an anti-fragmentation rule was proposed by the OECD, it was
“only in relation to pre-sales related activities, such as storage, display or delivery”,
as delivered by this clause. The group suggested that was problematic and did not go far enough because:
“These proposed changes would therefore not affect other types of structures which fragment functions such as manufacturing, purchasing, design, marketing and customer support.”
It continued:
“Moreover, the current proposals would have limited application to services.”
It felt that there was a particular problem for developing countries—I appreciate that we are not in that situation. It said that for the countries it works with often there was also a particular problem from “stripped-risk contract manufacturers”. It argued that, as an alternative to the BEPS anti-fragmentation proposals,
“One way to deal with this would be for the Commentary to make clear that where decisions are made locally in a country by personnel of any group member or agent that affect the commercial risks borne by any group member, then that group member will be considered to maintain a ‘place of management’ within that country within the meaning of Paragraph 2 of Article 5.”
That is quite a different approach from assessing whether fragmentation is occurring, and it would be helpful to understand why the Government believe their approach is sufficiently stringent in the light of critiques such as that one. That is another reason why I think our amendment is necessary.
Mel Stride
The clause makes changes to ensure that foreign businesses operating in the UK cannot avoid creating a taxable presence by splitting up their activities between different locations and companies. A non-resident company is liable to UK corporation tax only if it has a permanent establishment here—I shall use the abbreviation PE for permanent establishment. A PE may be a fixed place of business, also referred to as a branch, or the activity of an agent. We are mostly concerned here with branches.
As the hon. Member for Oxford East has outlined, certain preparatory or auxiliary activities, which are normally low value, such as storing the company’s own products, purchasing goods or collecting information for the non-resident company, are classed as exempt activities and do not create a permanent establishment. Some foreign businesses could artificially split their operations among different group companies or between different locations to take advantage of those exemptions and so avoid being liable to corporation tax.
To counter that, the OECD and G20 recommended modifying the definition of permanent establishment. The UK has adopted that change in its tax treaties, the bilateral tax arrangements that divide up taxing rights between countries, with which the hon. Lady and I are most familiar, having taken a series of pieces of secondary legislation through this House on those matters. It has given effect to that change through the BEPS multilateral instrument, as she pointed out, which entered into force for the UK on 1 October 2018.
Clause 21 replicates that treaty change in UK domestic law to make the change to tax treaties effective. It is most likely to affect non-resident manufacturing and distribution businesses that might try to structure their UK operations in order to minimise their UK tax footprint. The measure sends a signal that the UK Government are determined to tackle tax avoidance by foreign multinationals.
Turning to the two amendments tabled by the Opposition, amendment 47 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the changes made by this clause within six months of the Bill becoming law. I cannot support this amendment. Information on revenue effects will not be available six months after the passing of the Act, given that the first accounting periods likely to be affected are those ending on 31 March 2019, for which the filing date of company tax returns will be 31 March 2020.
The Government also cannot support amendment 48, which would require publication three months after the passing of the Act of a list of all additional PEs created as a result of this measure. HMRC would not know, as a company is not required to disclose, whether a declared PE has occurred as a result of this measure or for some other reason. The information would be available to HMRC only if it opened an inquiry into every non-resident company that newly declared a permanent establishment. That, as I hope the Committee would agree, is impractical. It would not be an appropriate use of inquiry powers and it would impose a significant burden on HMRC and the taxpayer for little revenue benefit. The Exchequer impact assessment has scored this measure as likely to have negligible yield. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee and invite Members to reject the amendments.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications and comments. I think we would be willing to withdraw the amendment, but I note that he did not refer to the critique that I mentioned by the BEPS monitoring group on whether the definition of fragmentation coming within the OECD process was sufficient. I do not want to detain the Committee on that point any longer, but I ask him to bear that critique in mind as we go through any additional tax treaties; I am sure we will come to some in the future with developing countries, because arguably this is a significant problem for them. It can be difficult for them to apply even the conventions in the model tax treaty to capture economic activity within their boundaries when they need to build up their tax base. Of course, we give many of those countries development aid.
As I said, I am willing to withdraw the amendment, but I would be grateful if the Minister kept those points in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Group relief etc: meaning of “UK related” company
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 24, page 14, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) At the end of section 134 of CTA 2010, insert—
‘(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review any change, attributable to the amendments made to this section by section 24 of the Finance Act 2019, to payments of corporation tax.
(3) A report of the review under subsection (2) must be laid before the House of Commons by 5 April 2020.’”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of this Clause, as far as they relate to section 134 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in clause 24, page 14, line 4, at end insert—
“(1B) At the end of section 134 of CTA 2010, insert—
‘(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on the property market attributable to the amendments made to this section by section 24 of the Finance Act 2019.
(5) A report of the review under subsection (4) must be laid before the House of Commons by 5 April 2020.’”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of this Clause, as far as they relate to section 134 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, on the property market and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
Amendment 53, in clause 24, page 14, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) At the end of section 188CJ of CTA 2010, insert—
‘(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review any change, attributable to the amendments made to this section by section 24 of the Finance Act 2019, to payments of corporation tax.
(3) A report of the review under subsection (2) must be laid before the House of Commons by 5 April 2020.’”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of this Clause, as far as they relate to section 188CJ of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
Amendment 54, in clause 24, page 14, line 7, at end insert—
“(2B) At the end of section 188CJ of CTA 2010, insert—
‘(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on the property market attributable to the amendments made to this section by section 24 of the Finance Act 2019.
(5) A report of the review under subsection (4) must be laid before the House of Commons by 5 April 2020.’”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of this Clause, as far as they relate to section 188CJ of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, on the property market and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.
Clause stand part.
Anneliese Dodds
The clause extends the definition of “UK-related company” for the purposes of group relief to include non-UK resident companies that are within the charge to corporation tax. That change follows previous announcements concerning the tax treatment of non-resident companies carrying out property-related business.
I think it will be helpful to indicate exactly what group relief relates to and why it is relevant. As I am sure the Committee is aware, group relief relates to the process whereby a so-called surrendering company that makes a corporate tax loss can pass certain kinds of losses to another company in its group. The benefiting company—the “claimant company”—can use the loss passed on to it to reduce its corporation tax liability. Apparently, the claimant company often then pays the surrendering company for the loss it received, up to the value of the tax that was saved. That payment is not counted for tax purposes. The surrendering company benefits from that arrangement, as it has access to those funds from the claimant company rather than having to hang on to the loss for subsequent years. There is no change to the circumstances of the claimant company—it cancels out some of its corporation tax and just passes that saving on to its fellow group member.
That regime was partially liberalised in 2016, albeit that it was then counteracted by the introduction for large companies of a limit, which means that only 50% of profits can be offset against losses carried forward. That ceiling applies across the group, not to individual firms. There are a number of stipulations concerning the extent of common share ownership, which are intended to prevent the false creation of groups in relation to group relief. It is necessary for one company to be the owner of three quarters or more of the other company’s share capital, or for a third company to own three quarters or more of the share capital of both companies involved, in order for them to be counted as part of a group for this purpose.
Other tests attempt to ensure that a genuine rather than a spurious group is involved. In addition, only certain types of income loss qualify, including trading losses, excess interest charges and management expenses. Until now, both the surrendering company and the claimant company had to be resident in the UK or carrying on a trade through a permanent establishment in the UK, although in some circumstances European economic area-based companies have been able to act as surrendering companies.
The Opposition have tabled four amendments to the clause. Amendments 51 and 53 would require a review of the impact on payments of corporation tax of the different elements of these proposals. Amendments 52 and 54 would require an examination of the proposals’ impact on property markets.
As I said, amendments 51 and 53 would require a review of the revenue effects of the clause, particularly on corporation tax. The measures in the clause appear to be part of a group of measures in the Bill that attempt to equalise the treatment of non-UK and UK-resident property companies when it comes to taxation. We have already discussed the fact that such companies will be transferred into corporation tax and standard capital gains tax. In many cases, although the measures concerned might be viewed as levelling the playing field, they might also be viewed as causing risks to revenue, not least due to the reduced rate of corporation tax, which we discussed before lunch.
Clearly, this change would benefit non-resident firms by enabling them more easily to plan when to pay corporation tax with the group of which they are a member. It would therefore to be helpful to have a clearer indication than has already been provided of the likely revenue effects of the clause. I am not saying that that ease and greater facility, in terms of planning corporation tax incidence, is necessarily a problem, but it will potentially have a revenue impact.
On a related note, we surely need a review of the impact of the clause on the UK property market, as would be required by our amendments 52 and 54. It will be particularly helpful if that review examines whether or not more non-EEA companies will be brought into the scope of this kind of intra-group transfer. It seems that that may well be the case. Currently, aside from UK-resident companies, only EEA-based companies, under certain circumstances, benefit from the ability to transfer loss, and thus tax incidence, across the group of which they are a member.
It would also be helpful to understand whether the new measures could help to incentivise more complex group structures that stretch beyond the UK and both into and outwith the EEA. There may be merits in the resultant diversification of risk, given the national specificities and risk profiles of different property markets in different countries and so on, but equally there could be a risk of contagion from poorly regulated property markets in some non-EEA countries. Those countries are not currently within the scope of these measures but will potentially be brought in by the Bill.
It would be helpful to be provided with a better understanding of the broader implications of the proposals in the clause than is currently set out in the explanatory notes. That is why we tabled amendments 52 and 54.
Mel Stride
The clause extends the definition of UK-related companies for the purposes of group relief to include non-UK resident companies within the charge to corporation tax. Non-UK resident companies are not simply those within the EEA but any company anywhere in the world.
Mel Stride
Yes. As the hon. Lady pointed out, clause 17 provides that a non-UK resident company that carries on a UK property business will be charged to corporation tax, rather than income tax, as we discussed earlier. This will deliver equal tax treatment for UK-resident and non-UK resident companies that carry on UK property businesses, including the application of anti-avoidance measures within the corporation tax regime, as I pointed out.
However, under the current rules, non-UK resident companies within the charge to corporation tax are not able to make use of group relief, which, as the hon. Lady described extremely well, is the mechanism by which a company is able to surrender its tax losses to another member of the group to relieve their taxable profits. Group relief is available to UK-resident companies and helps to ensure that the tax charged reflects the economic reality of the entire group.
The clause will extend the definition of a UK-related company for the purposes of group relief to include non-UK resident companies that are within the charge to corporation tax. This change will also apply to non-UK resident companies developing UK land that were brought within the charge to corporation tax from July 2016. The clause will ensure that the UK tax regime does not discriminate against non-UK resident companies. These changes come at a negligible cost to the Exchequer.
Amendments 51 and 53 would require a review of the impact of the clause on corporation tax receipts. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s certified assessment of the impact of the clause on corporation tax receipts has been estimated together with clause 17 and schedule 5, which we debated earlier. That is set out in table 2.2 of the 2018 Budget and will be updated in table 2.2 of the 2019 Budget.
Amendments 52 and 54 would require an analysis of the effects of the clause on the UK property market. The impact on the UK property market was considered in the design of the policy, but it is not expected to have any notable effect. The OBR did not consider that the clause, nor clause 17 and schedule 5, would have any impact on its UK property market forecast.
The clause is a necessary element of levelling the playing field between UK-resident companies and companies not resident in the UK. It provides for equal tax treatment so that companies in receipt of similar types of UK property income will face the same tax rules. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for the clarifications. It is important for the Committee to be aware that while this is part of a suite of measures to equalise tax treatment in terms of tax responsibilities, obviously the measure also provides some of the benefits of the UK tax system to non-EEA firms. Doing so could potentially increase the attractiveness of the UK property market for those non-EEA firms, which might be a good thing, but might also have other consequences. That is all I wish to say in response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Intangible fixed assets: exceptions to degrouping charges etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
The clause amends the corporate intangible fixed assets regime, which I will refer to as the IFA regime, to align the degrouping adjustment rules more closely with the equivalent rules in the chargeable gains code. The clause responds to concerns expressed during the Government’s consultation on the IFA regime, and in previous consultations, that the IFA degrouping adjustment is distorting how genuine commercial transactions are structured. The main criticism is that there are two different tax treatments for intangible assets, depending on whether the chargeable gains code or the IFA regime operates in respect of such assets.
The IFA regime provides corporation tax relief to companies on the cost of their intangible assets, such as patents or trademarks. The IFA regime, like the chargeable gains regime, allows groups to transfer assets between companies within the same group on a tax-neutral basis. That prevents gains or losses arising on transactions between companies within the same corporate group and reflects the fact that the group can constitute a single economic entity. Instead of recognising the market value of the asset on transfer, the company acquiring the asset inherits the tax history and costs of the transferor.
The rules contain an anti-avoidance provision which applies when an asset leaves the group. That is often referred to as a degrouping adjustment or charge. The degrouping adjustment effectively removes the benefit of a previous tax-neutral transfer to ensure the full economic gain or loss made by the group is taxed.
The chargeable gains tax code includes a similar set of rules, which were, however, amended in 2011 to refine the degrouping anti-avoidance rules where the sale of the shares in the degrouping company is exempt from a tax charge under the substantial shareholding exemption rules.
The clause seeks to address concerns commonly expressed by stakeholders during the recent IFA regime consultation and those raised during the 2016 review of the substantial shareholding exemption. Part 8 of the corporation tax code is amended so that the degrouping adjustment will not apply when a company leaves a group as a result of a share disposal that qualifies for the substantial shareholding exemption. That exemption applies only to disposals of trading companies, or parent companies of trading groups. In doing so, it aligns the clause with the treatment in the chargeable gains regime.
In summary, the clause makes a sensible change to the degrouping rules in the IFA regime to align them with the treatment elsewhere in the tax system. The clause responds to legitimate business concerns that existing legislation is distorting how genuine commercial transactions are structured. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Second sitting)
Anneliese Dodds ExcerptsTuesday 27th November 2018
(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 November 2018 - (27 Nov 2018)
Peter Dowd
It would be. That goes to the heart of the point. We want to tease this issue out and have a review. I know we have raised a million and one issues for review, but that is as much as we can do in the current climate. That is what we want to do: we want to tease all these matters out.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a review would enable us to tease out some of the matters that were presented to us and to explore some of the expert information that has been provided to us? For example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales tax faculty said that the clause will lead to a tax charge so, for example, emergency repairs will be initially paid for or arranged by an employee and then met by the employer. If we had a review, we could look into that matter and others in more detail.
Peter Dowd
That organisation is always helpful, and it points us in the direction that the Government should go in. That goes to the point I am making.
Many proposals have come back to bite us, so we need a proper review to see how they are bedding in. For example, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the automotive industry employs 168,000 people directly in manufacturing, and more than 856,000 are employed across the wider industry. It accounts for 12% of total UK exports of goods, and invests £3.65 billion each year in automotive research and development. More than 30 manufacturers build in excess of 70 models of vehicle in the UK, supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers. The automotive industry represents 1% of all employment in the UK and 7% of all manufacturing. It is also one of the few industries in the United Kingdom that has had a huge productivity increase since the financial crisis. The manufacturing of motor vehicles went from 5.4% of UK manufacturing in 2007 to 8.1% in 2017. Those figures do not, however, reflect the role that the automotive industry play in communities across the nations and regions of the UK, and the impact that a fall in sales or rentals relating to optional remuneration might have.
Kirsty Blackman
This is a process question for the Minister about going forward and ensuring that we scrutinise legislation in the best way. It would have been helpful if, in the explanatory notes, there had been some comment provided by the Scottish and Welsh Governments because both measures involve making changes that affect devolved benefits.
Given the devolved and reserved aspects of many of the matters we are discussing, I again make the case for a geographical split in the changes that the clause makes. There could have been specific Scottish, Welsh, RUK or whole UK sections, which would have made effective scrutiny easier. I emphasise that it would have been incredibly helpful to have that. I suggest for next year’s Finance Bill that, if the Government make changes of this nature, they could make both changes to ensure the most appropriate scrutiny.
I am happy to support the Opposition amendment. The hon. Member for Bootle made a powerful case about the gendered impact of the social security changes of recent years and the fact that women have been disproportionately hit by them. We do not want to see those changes exacerbated by a tax system that amplifies the issues faced by women as a result of the Government’s policies on social security. I am comfortable supporting the Opposition’s amendment and I plead with the Minister to consider making the changes that I have requested for future years.
Anneliese Dodds
It is an enormous pleasure to be in this Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Dorries, and to make my first brief speech here. I would like clarification from the Minister on the specific issue of tax treatment of council tax reduction schemes. Subsection (5) on page 8 of the Bill refers to “a” council tax reduction scheme, stating that
“Payment under a council tax reduction scheme”
is exempt from income tax. However, page 26 of the explanatory notes refers to
“the” council tax reduction scheme.
I am sure that colleagues will know that there is no longer one council tax reduction scheme across the UK, since central Government decided to top-slice that form of social security and devolve the design of it to different local authorities, albeit with the stipulation that the protection should be maintained for older people. Only a very small number of local authorities still provide full council tax relief, including council tax relief for low-income families. I am enormously proud that Oxford City Council is one of those.
Central Government have washed their hands of responsibility for this benefit. They have refused to provide figures on take-up, for example, in response to parliamentary questions that I have tabled. They have also refused to provide figures on the number of low-income people now being taken to court because they cannot pay council tax, because they are no longer provided with the relief. I am not cavilling over semantics when I ask the Minister to make crystal clear that the exemption from income tax provided in the Bill will apply to all council tax reduction schemes, not to some particular version of those schemes that the Government might wish to focus on.
Related to that, I heard a very worrying rumour that the Government might seek spuriously to argue that funds spent on council tax relief for families by local authorities should not be counted in central Government’s assessment of local authorities’ expenditures, because they are, in theory, discretionary. I disagree fundamentally with that position, because it would penalise those authorities that support the worst off. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that, just as I hope he will confirm that council tax relief for families is viewed as legitimate in the Bill, and for income tax purposes, it will be viewed as legitimate expenditure when it comes to the allocation of central Government support for local authorities.
Mel Stride
I start by addressing the specific points raised by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Oxford East. On the explanatory notes and the value or otherwise of a specific reference to input from the Scottish Government, I will certainly be happy to look at that in the future. I assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that there were significant discussions on these measures between the Treasury and Scottish officials in the appropriate manner. On the technical point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East around “the” scheme versus “a” scheme, the information I have is that the scheme came into force in April 2013. However, I will look into her specific question about whether the measures apply to “a” scheme or “the” scheme. I am afraid that I do not immediately have an answer to that, but I will get back to her as soon as I can.
Clause 12 clarifies and confirms the tax treatment of nine social security benefits. The income tax treatment of social security benefits is legislated for in part 10 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, which provides certainty about existing benefits and needs to be updated when new benefits are introduced. For example, the Scottish Government are introducing five new payments following the devolution of powers, including the young carer grant, the discretionary housing payment and the carer’s allowance supplement. Other payments covered by the clause have been in operation elsewhere in the UK for some time, such as the council tax reduction scheme and the flexible support fund, but are not yet covered clearly in legislation.
The changes made by clause 12 ensure that such payments are taxed appropriately, and that that is clear in legislation. The clause clarifies and confirms that such payments are exempt from tax, with one exception—the carer’s allowance supplement—which is taxable. That is in accordance with “The agreement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the Scottish Government’s fiscal framework”, which states:
“Any new benefits or discretionary payments introduced by the Scottish Government will not be deemed to be income for tax purposes, unless topping up a benefit which is deemed taxable such as Carer’s Allowance.”
Amendment 2 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the clause and lay a report of that review before the House within six months of the passing of the Bill. Such a review is unnecessary. The Government have already published a tax information and impact note for this measure, and our assessment, supported by the OBR, is that the Exchequer effects are negligible.
On the carer’s allowance supplement, which was introduced in Scotland in 2018, as a general rule benefits are taxable if they replace lost income. The carer’s allowance has therefore always been taxable. The vast majority of those receiving the supplement have income below the personal allowance and would therefore not be expected to pay any income tax. That is an important point in respect of the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle. I will not dwell on each payment covered by the clause, but I reiterate that eight of these payments are exempt from taxation. HMRC has not and will not collect any tax from these payments.
As the tax information and impact note sets out, the taxation of the carer’s allowance supplement is expected to have negligible Exchequer effects because, as I have said, the vast majority of those carers receiving the additional payment do not earn sufficient income to pay any income tax at all. However, any income tax receipts from that will of course go to the Scottish Government.
The Committee will also know that taxable social security income is aggregated and reported to HMRC through self-assessment after the end of the tax year. This is an important point in the context of the amendment. That income will not need to be reported until January 2020. A review would therefore be impractical only six months after the Bill’s passing. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. As he stated, this clause and schedule are intended to perform a variety of functions to level the playing field—the number of times that he used that phrase was interesting—between UK and non-UK residents when it comes to the payment of corporation and capital gains tax on gains from disposals of interest in UK land. They include, as he mentioned, the removal of the charge to tax on ATED-related gains, with ATED standing for the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. As was mentioned, these changes follow on from the imbalance in the tax treatment of the disposal of interests in property by individuals as against companies, artificial or otherwise, which has been gradually rectified over recent years.
Part 3 of the Finance Act 2013 introduced ATED as a principle and the concept of enveloped dwellings so that there would be a capital gains tax charge on non-natural persons who had owned properties worth more than £500,000, subject to a range of exemptions. That was followed three years ago by the extension of capital gains tax on gains arising on the disposal of UK residential property interests by certain non-resident persons, including individuals, trustees and closely held companies. However, that was not accompanied by a levelling of the playing field in relation to non-residential property wealth—land and commercial property—until now, although for reasons that I will explain, these measures are wanting in their current form, in particular because they involve a so-called trading exemption, to which I note the Minister, unless I misheard him, and he is normally very clear, did not refer in his comments. I shall speak first about that main and very significant problem with the clause and schedule, before moving on to describe the amendments in relation to them.
In an ideal world, we as the Opposition would have sought to remove the trading exemption for enveloped structures to avoid capital gains tax. Indeed, that is what some of the amendments that we had tabled set out to do. I completely understand why they were ruled out of order. There is absolutely no criticism of the decision to do that. I am sure that it was because of the restrictions imposed on us because of the Government’s failure to table an amendment to the law resolution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle has already referred to. However, that trading exemption threatens to emasculate this measure.
I am sure that members of the Committee will be aware that almost all the measure’s projected yield is expected to derive from non-resident companies when they dispose of UK commercial property such as offices, factories, warehouses, shops, hotels, leisure facilities and agricultural—
The Chair
Order. Amendments 26 and 27 were not selected because they are charging, not because of a lack of an amendment of the law resolution.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful for the clarification. I am sorry if I got the situation wrong, and it is helpful to have heard that. However, I understand that it is appropriate for me to discuss the substantive matters in the clause, even if we do not have amendments tabled on them. Other hon. Members have done that, so I will continue to do so before I move on to my amendments, if that is acceptable. I am sorry if I mischaracterised the position and the decisions that were taken.
Anneliese Dodds
To continue with reasons why the trading exemption is illegitimate to our mind, as I mentioned before, the yield that has been described as arising from the measure is expected to derive from non-resident companies disposing of the whole range of different types of UK commercial property that I listed. Unlike residential property, most of which is owned by individuals, almost all major UK commercial property is held by large corporates or collective investment schemes or trusts.
Those large corporate investors in property are sometimes known as property envelopes, which reflects the fact that the companies’ principal purpose is to operate as a synthetic wrapper for owning land. Since the property envelope has full title to the land, any individual or other corporate owning the property envelope—for example, by owning its shares—is the ultimate or indirect owner of the underlying land.
Typically, when selling the property, the ultimate owners do so indirectly, by selling their interests in the property envelope, rather than by a direct sale of the property itself. That form of disposal is often known as an envelope disposal, since the property envelope has full title to the land, and the transfer of its shares to a new owner is tantamount to a conveyance of the property to new ownership. There are often tax reasons for that form of conveyance, since the transfer of shares, rather than land, does not attract any stamp duty land tax charge, which results in a substantial saving for the purchaser.
Recognising that situation, the consultation on the proposed measures proposed charging non-UK residents capital gains on disposals of their interest in property envelopes in the same way as if they had sold the actual land. The consultation document proposed that a property envelope would be defined as a property rich entity if it had UK property assets that represented 75% or more of the value of the entity’s total assets, as the Minister mentioned. Given that the vast majority of high-value UK commercial property is owned through a property envelope, that element of the rules, which I will refer to in future as the anti-enveloping rule for ease of discussion, is critical to the measure securing significant yield.
In response to the consultation responses that the Government received, the draft legislation includes an exception to the charge on disposals of property envelopes if the property owned in that envelope is being used in an ongoing trade that continues after the disposal takes place. In effect, that means that non-residents who make a disposal of shares in a property envelope will not be subject to any charge, provided that the property is being used for a trade.
That condition will be met if the property is being used as an office, a factory, a warehouse, a shop, a hotel, a leisure facility, in a farming trade or for any other similar commercial purpose—I am sure the Committee gets my drift. As such, the exception is surely entirely contrary to the stated rationale for the measure, which is to ensure that non-residents are taxed on gains from the disposal of commercial property in the same way as UK residents. Again, I remind the Committee that the Minister used the phrase “having a level playing field” several times in his remarks. Commercial property will, almost by definition, be used in a trade.
I am sure that the entire Committee will be scratching their heads and asking why the change occurred. Well, there were 120 respondents in all to the consultation, a number of which focused on one question only, many of which came from the most significant actors in this arena, namely the big four and large property concerns, including representatives from the real estate and collective investment scheme sector.
The Government response to the consultation states:
“Many respondents were concerned by”—
what they described as—
“the ‘cliff-edge’ nature of the 75% property richness test. They noted that fluctuations in the value of property and other assets could lead to cases where an entity strayed in and out of property richness. Some were concerned that real-estate rich trades such as retail and hotel chains and utility companies could fall to be property-rich, or that investors in these trades might be concerned that they were, and be forced to go to lengths to explore the rules and test their situation, often finding that there was no impact. To ameliorate this, a number of respondents asked for a trading exemption to make it simple for smaller investors to understand when the rules did not apply to them. They noted that the main policy aim was to tax UK land, not interests in retailers or utility companies.”
The Government response went on to say that,
“the government will agree to add a trading exemption. When a disposal is made of an interest in an entity that is trading both before and after the disposal, as for connected parties under the Substantial Shareholdings Exemption rules, then it will not be considered to be an indirect disposal of an interest in UK land”—
That is, it will not be treated as an enveloped disposal.
“Although the government does not intend to provide a specific exemption for infrastructure, a trading exemption should also deal with instances where the infrastructure disposed of is in use as part of an ongoing trade being disposed of alongside it in the arrangement.”
Surely, that exemption will undermine the overall intent of the measure. First, the main target of the legislation is enveloped disposals of commercial property made by non-residents. Almost all commercial property will, as I mentioned before, by definition, be used in a trade. The examples of commercial property given in the consultation document—offices, shops, industrial units and hotels—are all examples where the property is used in a trade, yet these disposals will be outside the scope of the new rules, provided that the sale is an enveloped one, and that the trade continues under its new ownership.
That is in clear contrast to the situation for UK residents. An equivalent disposal made by a UK resident is chargeable to tax, unless it meets specific conditions laid out in those substantial shareholding exemption rules—the SSE rules, which the consultation response referred to. The original consultation document was clear that non-residents would be able to benefit from the substantial shareholding exemptions in the same way as UK companies. However, the response document, as I just described, goes further than that: it grants a blanket exemption available only to non-residents and in circumstances much wider than the SSE.
Frankly, I very much doubt that many property envelopes or large investors involved in them would go to the lengths of requiring ongoing trades in their ownership—say, a popular hotel—to close while they are selling that commercial property, just so that they can have the joy of paying stamp duty land tax. If the Government think otherwise, perhaps they can enlighten us, but I think the chances of that are fairly slim. That appears to be what would be necessary in order for them to be caught by this measure. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us, if I have got that wrong.
This trading exemption undermines any claim that the measure creates a level playing field with comparable UK businesses, and also provides an avoidance opportunity that, worryingly, even UK businesses could exploit, if they arrange for their UK property to be held through chains of offshore envelopes. That is surely something that our Government cannot stand by and facilitate, yet they seem to be doing so—albeit unwittingly, I am sure.
The Government’s stated reason for making this change is to help smaller investors, but if that is the aim, surely it would be more appropriate to include an explicit small-investor exemption that would not apply to larger capital gains.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for those comments, but I would like to clarify a few points, so that we are not talking at sixes and sevens. In relation to the trading exemption, the point is not that it would exempt certain categories of business as opposed to others, but that it would exempt those businesses that are trading before and after the disposal, so it introduces a new concept that is not applied to UK-resident investors to the same extent. That is what is relevant, rather than whether we are talking about a supermarket or not. That would be relevant to the property richness test, but the trading exemption is a separate element of the Bill that I was trying to push on.
In relation to the 25%, the Minister always valiantly attempts to support his Government’s policies. He is right that a figure must surely be attached to any numerical proposition in a Bill. He tried to do that here and said that 25% had been arrived at. The suggestion was that any figure could be contested. Again, it is not the specific value of that figure that is problematic, but what the figure refers to. My contention was that the Government should focus not necessarily on the proportion of the gain, but on the value of the gain. His Government have decided to focus not on the value but on the proportion. As I said, 25%—or rather, 20%—of a gain could be £1 million, which is a tremendously large value, but it could be a smaller proportion if it is just 20%.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Lady agree that having both of those in the Bill would be useful, so we could have the 25% figure or gains over £200,000, or any such figure as the Government deemed appropriate?
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Government are quite keen on double thresholds in other contexts, so this is a case where a double threshold could be introduced if they were concerned about protecting those small investors. One could have both a measure related to the proportion of the gain and one related to the value of the gain. That could be very sensible.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on tax treaties, but I was trying to get at whether he feels that the reference in the legislation—I cannot remember the exact term used in the explanatory notes, but it is something like referring to the “intent” or “spirit” of the tax treaty, rather than the letter—is sufficiently legally watertight. I am concerned that it would not be, because many people who have moved their tax affairs to Luxembourg to avoid tax are quite adept at reading just the letter and not conforming with the spirit, when they want to.
Finally, in response to the question from the hon. and gallant Member for Poole—
Anneliese Dodds
I am a new Member and I am always getting my fingers rapped about how to refer to other Members. I never want to upset anyone, so I hope I have not upset the hon. Gentleman.
If we look at the proportion of the commercial property market owned by non-UK investors, we see that there has been a change over time. We should surely consider that when we look at the impact or otherwise of Government policy, as well as the absolute amount of tax revenue that will go up since absolute figures go up because of inflation and so on. I do not wish to try the patience of the Committee, so we will not press our amendments to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (First sitting)
Anneliese Dodds Excerpts(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to make the first substantial speech in this Finance Bill Committee—the first of many, I am sure.
Once again, the Scottish National party has tabled an amendment to the programme motion. It has concerned me for a long time that Finance Bill Committees do not take evidence and I think it would be better for the quality of debate if they did. This year, there are specific issues relating to the lack of consultation on the draft clauses and to the tight timescale for considering the Bill. I raised in Committee of the whole House my concerns about the fact that paper copies of the Bill were published on a Wednesday and we had to debate them on the Monday, which did not give us enough time given that the House was in recess. External organisations have also raised concerns about the lack of time for scrutiny, particularly for the unusually high number of clauses that were not consulted on in draft form. Glyn Fullelove of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, whom I quoted in Committee of the whole House, has been a particular critic of the process.
The SNP asks that, on Thursday, instead of having two normal sittings as planned, we take evidence from the Treasury, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. They all know more about the legislation than we do, so it would be incredibly useful to hear from them.
I must also point out that the Government have included several clauses to make changes to previous legislation that was deficient. If Government legislation is deficient, I contend that more consultation must be a good thing.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that, as I understand it, the Committee in the other House is taking evidence on elements of the Bill, surely the hon. Lady agrees that we should be afforded that opportunity in this House.
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. It is odd that the House of Lords is more democratic than this place in relation to the Bill.
The Finance Bill Committee should take evidence. I know that it is a long-standing convention that it does not, but having served on the Public Bill Committee on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 and heard the evidence taken, I know how useful it was for Committee members and how many of them referred to it in subsequent debate. It was an incredibly useful exercise and the legislation that came forward was better as a result.
As I flagged up in last year’s Finance Bill debates, it is very good that external organisations have submitted written evidence, but I guarantee that the majority of hon. Members in this Committee have not read it all because of how little time we have had. Allowing us to question witnesses on the evidence that they provide on the Finance Bill Committee would be incredibly useful. The Government might not accept that this year, but can we consider taking evidence in future years? I am not the only one calling for this. The “Better Budgets” report produced by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and various other organisations called for the Finance Bill Committee to take evidence two and a half years ago, so external organisations have requested it, not just the SNP.
Peter Dowd
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I will address later in my remarks, and which we can tease out across the Committee if we want.
For Members who do not know, labour productivity is calculated by dividing output by labour input. Output refers to gross value added, which is an estimate of the volume of goods and services by an industry, and in aggregate for the UK as a whole. Labour inputs are measured in terms of workers, jobs—“productivity jobs”—and hours worked, or “productivity hours”.
The cuts to corporation tax have done nothing to improve our productivity. The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden may wish to listen to that point, so I will repeat it: the cuts to corporation tax have done nothing to improve our productivity. That strikes at the heart of the Government’s failure on the issue. In fact, the economic statistics centre of excellence and the centre for macroeconomics at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research published a study this year of Britain’s very poor productivity. That brings us to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, because one would assume that as a result of the tax cuts, more would be invested and productivity would rise—but that has not happened. The Government have argued that those corporations now receiving significant sums in tax cuts would invest in our economy and drive their business models forward, thus increasing UK productivity. Unfortunately, the 2018 paper shows that the billions of pounds of giveaways have not had a positive productivity effect. To deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, that paper says:
“Average annual…productivity growth was 2.5 percentage points lower during the period 2011-2015 than in the decade before the financial crisis…in 2007. We find that several years on from the financial crisis stagnation remains widespread across detailed industry divisions, pointing to economy-wide explanations for the puzzle. With some exceptions, labour productivity…lost…momentum in those industries that experienced strong growth before the crisis. Three fifths of the gap is accounted for by a few industries that together account for less than one fifth of market sector value added. In terms of why we observe continued stagnation, we find that capital shallowing has become increasingly important in explaining the labour productivity growth gap in service sectors, as the buoyancy of the UK labour market has not been sufficiently matched by investment…The collapse in labour productivity growth has been more pronounced in the UK than elsewhere”
notwithstanding those major cuts in corporation tax.
Anneliese Dodds
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a contradiction in Government policy? They appear to believe that cutting corporation tax rates will lead to a higher activity rate and a higher investment rate—as he said, that has not been the outcome—but when it comes to social security, the assumption appears to be that cutting the rate of income that people can take home by having a high taper rate, for example, will necessarily lead to a higher work rate. Actually, the evidence shows that the vast majority of people on social security want to work and there is no evidence that they do not want to. The psychological approach to corporations—that if they give them more corporate welfare, they will work harder, although the evidence does not indicate that that is the case—seems to be very different from the approach to social security recipients, where the view is that if they reduce their income they will work harder, when actually most people want to work.
Peter Dowd
I do not want to introduce Gilbert and Sullivan, but the point is that it is a topsy-turvy world where cash for corporations equals productivity, when it does not, and cuts to welfare equal productivity, when they do not. It is not as simple as that and I am afraid that the Government’s rather one-dimensional approach does not work. That report shows that the billions handed to those big companies by the Government have not had the required effect on business investment to drive up productivity. The facts are there for everybody to see. No doubt, if we had had some experts here, we could have teased that out a bit more.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Members for Bootle and for Aberdeen North for their wide-ranging contributions to the important debate about corporation tax. As we know, clause 2 brings in the corporation tax charge for 2020, the rate of 17% having been set in part 2 of the Finance Act 2016.
The hon. Member for Bootle referred to slashing tax for big businesses. It is a typical Opposition characterisation of our tax policy to say that the largest companies are being treated to corporate welfare, as he put it, but tax cuts apply right across the board, including to the smallest businesses in our country. Given that we are reducing tax to 17% by 2020 for both small and large businesses, the Opposition’s proposal to increase it to 26% for large businesses and 21% for smaller businesses would represent overall tax increases of 50% and 25% respectively.
Anneliese Dodds
Does the Minister acknowledge that we are talking about profitable businesses and not about unprofitable businesses, of which unfortunately there are a large number in many parts of the country? I am pleased to hear him acknowledge that Labour’s tax plans include a differential rate for small businesses, but surely he must acknowledge the sunk cost in what his Government have done. Through their cuts to central Government funding, they have forced local authorities to rely more on business rates and council tax, so the fixed costs that all businesses pay have gone up.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady correctly identifies that Labour’s position is for small businesses to pay 21% in corporation tax. Given that we are taking it down to 17%, her party’s policy would result in the tax bill for hard-pressed companies on high streets rising by some 25% for smaller businesses—a pretty extraordinary and hefty increase—and by some 50% for larger businesses. One has to ask what the effect of those tax increases would be. They would not drive productivity, as the hon. Member for Bootle would have us believe, but do quite the reverse: they would increase the costs on businesses, increase the pressures to drive up prices for their products and, critically, reduce returns to investors. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of investment in our country, but we cannot increase that by driving up corporation tax rates.
As the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North rightly said, business rates are a fixed cost that cannot be avoided, irrespective of whether a business is profitable, but we are driving those rates down. In the last Budget, because of the prudent stewardship of our economy, we were able to announce a 30% reduction in rates for retailers at or below the rateable value of £51,000. That will take a huge amount of pressure off about 90% of the high street retailers in our country.
Anneliese Dodds
On that point, the current incarnation of GAAR is focused on abuse rather than avoidance, as the Minister mentioned. I wonder whether he can clarify something. I understand that the GAAR panel has given 12 opinions, but there are only nine on the website, although in any case that seems a relatively small number of decisions taken. Does he not feel that it would be appropriate to review the GAAR panel’s operations at this stage?
Mel Stride
I do not, for the reasons that I have given. On the matter of how many references there have been, nine in total have supported HMRC’s position. That said, if the hon. Lady has information that suggests there have been 12 referrals, I will look into what might be a further three and what the status of those was.
Anneliese Dodds
I received notice that there were 12 in a ministerial response to a written question that I tabled. That might indicate that the panel did not support HMRC in three cases. If that is the case, it would be enormously helpful for us to know why.
As the Minister knows, when the panel was created, considerable concern was expressed about the variety of its membership. The individuals themselves are obviously upright, knowledgeable people of good standing, but they come from a restricted group of people, many of whom have been involved in devising some of the tax schemes that the panel might be required to look at.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady makes an entirely reasonable request for that information. As I indicated, I am happy to provide it to her. In fact, divine inspiration has just arrived—I have an answer; I knew it was lost somewhere in my mind. There have, in fact, been 12 opinions, all of which have been supportive of HMRC. If she would care for any further information, I am happy to provide it outside the Committee.[Official Report, 3 December 2018, Vol. 650, c. 5MC.]
Amendment 11 would make the clause contingent on a review of how the application of globally agreed measures to combat avoidance by multinationals would impact the tax gap. HMRC publishes annual updates on its tax gap analysis. The corporation tax gap is estimated to have declined from 12.4% of total theoretical liabilities in 2005-6, under the previous Government, to 7.4% in 2016-17.
Mel Stride
If it is in order, Ms Dorries, I will give the hon. Member for Oxford East an additional piece of information on the issue of referrals to the panel. There were nine cases rather than 12; there were 12 opinions on those nine cases, all of which supported HMRC. That might explain how I had a figure of nine while the hon. Lady was focused on 12.[Official Report, 3 December 2018, Vol. 650, c. 5MC.]
Mel Stride
I shall write to the hon. Lady on this matter and any others that she wishes to inquire about.
Question put, That the amendment be made.