Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Government have made a number of commitments on the implementation of the Cass review. Will they commit themselves to ensuring that trans people do have access to the healthcare that they need, and to ensuring that waiting lists are brought down as soon as possible?

[Anneliese Dodds]

The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the very long waiting lists currently experienced by many people. I know that the Health Secretary is focusing on the issue, as well as on LGBT health more broadly—indeed, on health for everyone—as part of our mission to get the NHS off the floor and off its knees and working for everyone in the country.

Global Intergenerational Week 2024

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Thursday 9th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a real pleasure to participate in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing a debate on this subject.

I always say, and I really do believe, that being a Member of Parliament is the best job in the world, but I was delighted to hear the hon. Lady speak about her joy in being a granny, which is a very important job indeed. It is such a privilege to be here for the first time Parliament has debated this really important subject. Although Global Intergenerational Week was a few weeks ago, it is excellent to see colleagues gathered here to discuss it.

It is really important that we embrace intergenerational practice and relationships, whether that is as individuals, groups, organisations, Governments or political parties. We have heard many great examples during this brief discussion today, such as living arrangements bringing people together, as well as different projects and organisations, and oral history, which I agree is incredibly important.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about children being brought into residential homes. My children also had that experience when they were attending a co-operative nursery. It was incredibly important for them, particularly as they do not have close relatives living nearby; I felt that was very important indeed.

As well as bringing people together, we also need to make sure that all people of different generations and age groups are protected from the kind of stereotyping that we are hearing about, and from discrimination. We need to ensure that everyone, regardless of age, is treated with dignity and respect, and treated equally in our society. As well as protections that apply to people of any age, the Equality Act 2010 enshrines in law protections against discrimination on the basis of age. No one should be discriminated against because they are or are not a certain age or in a certain age group. For 14 years, that landmark legislation, which many other countries have tried to copy, has protected people of all ages from direct and indirect discrimination, as well as from harassment and victimisation. It has helped to build understanding of the challenges that different age groups face. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw stressed that many of those challenges are common to different generations.

It was great to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen North talking about some of the privileges we have as parliamentarians and the job that we do when we are seeking to represent everyone in our constituencies. I too had the privilege of seeing the Brownies at their first ever meeting in the House of Commons, which was very exciting.

Another privilege we have as parliamentarians—I am sure others will recognise this—is that people send us reading material. I was sent a fascinating book, “Generations”, by Bobby Duffy, who has done a lot of work looking into the stereotypes about different generations. The book comprehensively demolishes the idea that, for example, young people today are fixated on ephemeral issues, are only interested in having fun and that issues around the cost of living are not important to them. It shows that younger generations are concerned about the health, wellbeing and success of future generations. I am glad that the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act was highlighted. It is a great achievement of the Welsh Government, which ensures that the concerns of future generations are structurally represented in Government.

Some big challenges have been talked about this afternoon including mental health issues. In some cases, sadly, they carry across the generations. The issue of loneliness was rightly mentioned. For young people, social media use often exacerbates loneliness rather than brings people together to combat it. Lonliness is also a big challenge for many older people. Age UK has done wonderful work on this, but says that 1.4 million older people report themselves as often being lonely, which is a terrible statistic for us to reflect on, and surely—hopefully—to act on. It was great to hear about some of the projects combating loneliness in Motherwell. The Clockhouse Project in Blackbird Leys in my constituency also does great work bringing older people together. Clearly, though, we need to do more.

We need to do more across the generations when it comes to mental health, as well. In particular, we need to tackle the crisis in children’s mental health and the currently very long waiting lists for support. We need much higher staffing levels within the NHS, but we also need to ensure that this is integrated with schooling, so that there are specialist mental health professionals at every school. There must be much more open access to mental health care, whether that is for young, middle-aged or older people.

We have to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage. Today, unfortunately, inequality is entrenched across the country. We are seeing inequality that is regional, inequality that is racial, inequality between men and women, and class inequality. Traditionally in the UK, there has been a promise that we can tell our children and grandchildren, “If you work hard, you will be able to get on, no matter what your background is.” That increasingly has not been the case for many people in our society, unfortunately.

Many older people who have worked hard all their lives are in an increasingly difficult situation. The housing crisis was rightly referred to, and clearly that is a huge challenge for many young people, but as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw rightly said, it is increasingly a challenge for older people, too. Lots of older people are now living in precarious, poor-quality, private rented sector housing. This is the first time that that has been the case for a number of decades, and we really need to be facing up to that.

We must consider all generations when it comes to big challenges such as combating violence in our communities. I pay tribute to the work of Age UK, but I was very concerned to hear that it was Age UK’s hard work that led to Government systematically collecting information about the rates of domestic violence against older people, and that the information had not previously been routinely collected. That is really concerning. It should have been routinely collected, because we need to learn from it to ensure that every older person is safe. Of course, we also need to understand new forms of violence and control. That means having a focus on the kind of online issues that were touched on in this debate.

We need to look at how, ultimately, the different generations are progressing or otherwise. There is a measure of that: income persistence. The UK currently has American-style levels of income persistence which are significantly higher than the OECD average. That means that your parents’ income determines a huge amount of what your income as a young person and subsequent generations’ will be. Other countries are far better at disrupting that persistence. We believe that we have to take action on this and that the Social Mobility Commission should be involved in recording and analysing data on it. We need to do that and to learn from analysis of other sources, such as the longitudinal education outcomes data, so we can ensure much greater intergenerational income mobility.

I feel that I cannot not mention the need to recognise the contribution of every single generation to our society and economy. One generation that I have talked about a lot is people in their 40s, 50s and 60s, particularly women. That group of women does not get talked about very much, and are not represented very much in the media. They do a lot, and though they tend not to complain very much, they are often squeezed at both ends. They provide huge amounts of care as sandwich carers. Many are trying to hold down a job. They are supporting children and often their partners or parents too, both financially and emotionally. Often they are experiencing health problems as well, and some are finding it challenging to manage menopausal symptoms alongside work that is not sufficiently flexible or suitable.

Politics simply has not kept up with the requirements of that generation. It should keep up, because the number of women falling into that generation and moving out of the labour market is very significant. We have calculated that our economy is losing about £7 billion in untapped potential because of those women being forced out of the labour market. Surely we need to do better there. We need to be acting on these issues.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I commend the hon. Member for highlighting that group of women. She is absolutely right: they do not get talked about enough. It is a responsibility of parliamentarians to ensure that we are talking about them, thanking them for their contribution and trying to make life better for them, or at least slightly more bearable than it currently is, so I thank her very much for doing so.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for what she says. It is important that Parliament is in step with society as well.

We have seen a huge amount of change, with much of the focus on these kinds of issues. We have seen significant positive change across the generations. It is interesting that the amount of childcare undertaken by both parents has changed substantially in recent years, albeit still not the progress we would like. We see it in shared leave, at nursery and school pick-ups, and in time off when the kids are ill or during school holidays. All those things are now viewed as part of the parcel of not just being a mother, but being a parent. None the less, much more progress is still needed.

There has been change over the generations, and, as I say, Parliament and politics really need to catch up on all of that. In doing so, we can work together across generations and learn from each other about what has changed things in a positive direction. That really gets to the root of what Global Intergenerational Week is all about. It was mentioned earlier that more diverse teams tend to have far better outcomes—particularly in business, but it applies everywhere. If we do not include every generation in our decision making, we will not take the right and effective decisions. The work undertaken by those who have been promoting Global Intergenerational Week really underlines that. It also enables us to celebrate the wonderful contribution of all generations—surely we should be doing that too.

National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his passion about this issue, and—I am sure—about the sport of cricket, but he has underlined the point that I was trying to make. He has talked about a particular period of time, “however that is defined”. My point is that the quote I read out indicates that, according to the England and Wales Cricket Board, there can be no definition of the period of time that can be used for these testimonials, because if there is an automatic trigger for such an event, that should not be grounds for a testimonial. One assumes that it should instead be due to the fans themselves, the people who are calling for such a testimonial, but there is not an automatic trigger for it. That leads again to the question of what the term “customary” actually means. When we make legislation, it is important that we are clear about what those concepts mean, and whether they have any content. If it is just an empty placeholder, I think we would all agree that the term should not be used.

The Minister maintains that HMRC provides guidance about this. In my lunch break, I tried to look this up—I know how to live, Sir Henry—and I found the information about income tax. This language is already applied to income tax liability, exactly as the Minister mentioned, and reference is made to “normal practice” and case law. However, that information does not specify what the case law is, or indeed what the normal practice is. If there is a pattern to testimonials, one concern is that it would potentially be possible to argue that a pattern somehow is not there, and that a particular testimonial is non-customary, in order to get around having to pay the employer’s NICs. Equally, there could be pressure on employers to reduce the number of testimonials that are called for—to dissuade calls for testimonials in order to make them less likely to occur.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Picking up on that point, we are relying on HMRC guidance, which can be changed in the future. The word “customary” is written here, but that is reliant on guidance alone. If there had been more explanation in the Bill of what “customary” means, or if it had just said “contractual and not customary”, we probably would not be in this situation. We would not be relying on guidance that may or may not be accessible, and may or may not change in the future.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I absolutely agree with that point. Looking at that guidance, it is interesting that there is a lot of detail about certain issues, such as what happens if there is a second testimonial for whatever reason. Let us say that £70,000 was received from the first one, and then the second one goes over the £100,000 threshold; there is detail about what the tax treatment should be. There is detail about what the tax treatment would be if the testimonial was for a player who had, very sadly, died on the pitch, and the money was going to their family. Just about every eventuality is covered, apart from this issue of “customary nature”. In the interests of clear tax policy, it would help if we had more detail about that.

Secondly, explicitly concerning the tax treatment of charitable giving, we had a discussion about this before and the Minister referred to it again in his comments. It was argued that testimonial committees could use payroll giving from the testimonial to route funds to charities, given that they would be class 1A employer NICs. Indeed, he mentioned that players could use the gift aid procedures if payments were made directly to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle rightly pointed out—and it was confirmed during the session—that this would add an additional layer of complexity and administration to the process. To inform those reading Hansard, the Minister is shaking his head. Perhaps he can explain why that would not be the case. We are talking about potentially large sums here that could provide the largest of any cash boosts received by a player’s foundation. We need more detail.

Finally, new clause 5 asks for an assessment of the Bill’s impact on testimonial payments made to professionals from different sports, including footballers, cricketers, rugby league players, rugby union players and other sportspeople. It is important that all varieties of sport receive adequate support and it would be helpful to have a better understanding of the likely incidence of the charge in that regard—for example, whether there is a similar rate of use in other sports to that provided by the PFA for professional football, and whether a similar proportion of those testimonials are contractual or non-contractual. As I said before, the implication of the information provided by the England and Wales Cricket Board is that there would be no customary non-contractual testimonials. Is that the case in other sports? We do not know. It would be useful to understand that. We also need that information because favourable tax treatment is still being provided for that first £100,000 of non-contractual, non-customary testimonial payments.

It may well be the case that in different sports, the employment opportunities on retirement as a professional player are very different. Within football, some go on to be agents, coaches, commentators and so on; many others do not. Such roles may not be as available in other sports. It would help if we understood more of the background to this.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will not add a huge amount to what the Opposition spokesperson has said on this. I am particularly concerned about the effect on donations to charities that would result from the sporting testimonial changes contained in the Bill. New clause 2 requests a report on the assessment of the expected impact of

“the total amounts received by individuals from sporting testimonials”

which is the other concern here, and also

“the donations made to charity from sporting testimonial proceeds.”

If the Government are contending that there will be no change in the amount of money given to charity from sporting testimonial proceeds, it would be useful if they said that. If they believe it is unquantifiable, it would be useful if they said that too, so that we are clear what the Government expect—or what they think they expect—from the changes they are putting forward in the Bill. Once again, the Government have said they are expecting a negligible Exchequer impact from this. It would be useful to know the trade-off: how much they believe charitable organisations will be losing in order to generate a negligible Exchequer impact.

I agree with both of the Labour party positions: on amendment 2, which is similar to mine on donations to charities, but also on the one on the review of different sportspeople. It is important that we work out what is almost a distributional analysis. We all know that footballers in the male professional game get paid an awful lot more money than any other individuals. If we see that people who are getting paid far less are subject to the highest percentage of impact, there is a problem in what the Government are suggesting.

Lastly, on clauses 3 and 4, I raised the issue this morning and I got an answer—but not a very descriptive one—on the reason that the Government have used the term “general earnings”, which is different from the wording used in part 1 of the Bill. I was told that there is a good reason for it, but I am still not clear what that good reason is, although I understand that the Minister believes there is one. It would be useful to know why that change has been made, and whether it makes it easier or harder for the Government to change the threshold level. If changing the £30,000 threshold level in part 1 is by affirmative secondary legislation, how does the difference in language affect whether or not affirmative secondary legislation is required to change the £100,000 threshold as well? Is there a different process because of the choice of language?

Draft Collective Investment Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Long-term Investment Funds (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Wednesday 30th January 2019 General Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, if that is the case. However, even if it were not the case previously, there is a prima facie argument that it would be useful for Committees of this type to be able to see in the committee room the previous regulation and be able to compare it with what is being suggested. Otherwise, it is extremely hard for us to understand exactly what is being proposed in some of the very complex changes that are being implemented.

That difficulty had its apogee with the MiFID—markets in financial instruments directive—transposition regulation. I will not go into all the details; I have discussed the matter with the Minister many times. The Opposition had hoped to debate that subject on the Floor of the House because it was recognised in that case that a Keeling schedule was necessary, effectively to track changes. It would be helpful for Members in all such Committees to be able to see the direct impact of changes from this no-deal legislation. Otherwise, it is very difficult to understand.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Even if the documentation that was made available to MPs beforehand related to the relevant legislation, that would be a slightly better position than the one we are in now, and it would not require a Government Minister actually to bring the legislation with him.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. She is right that it would be helpful. In many cases, we are talking about the initial legislation, which itself was relatively complex and has often been amended. It would be useful for all of us during this complex process to have some aid in that regard.

In its amendment of article 5.1 of the EU regulation, the statutory instrument would give the FCA an extra-territorial power that it should not have. That is obviously fairly problematic because, whatever kind of Brexit occurs, ELTIFs will continue to exist under EU as well as UK law. It is EU-level authorities that will provide their initial designation for the EU27. To explain that quickly, articles 4 and 5 of the ELTIF regulation set out the conditions for the designation and authorisation of ELTIFs. In the draft regulations presented to us today, article 7 amends articles 4 and 5.1 of the EU regulation in quite a strange direction.

Article 4 refers to LTIFs, but article 5.1 talks about applications for authorisations of ELTIFs and says that application for authorisation as an ELTIF shall be made to the FCA, and sets out the process for application for LTIFs. I am sorry that this is very complicated but it underlines the confusing nature of the SI.

It seems that the proposed article 5.1 as amended is wrong because ELTIFs will continue to exist under EU law after Brexit. It will not be in the FCA’s gift to recognise and authorise them outwith the UK. We need just a small change to article 5.1, which should read: “An application for authorisation within the UK as an ELTIF shall be made to the FCA.” Will the Minister assure us that he will look into that and seek to amend the legislation accordingly, if that concern proves genuine and is not just my reading of the text?

Draft Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds (Information) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Tuesday 8th January 2019 General Committees

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. May I wish everyone on the Committee a happy new year?

Once again, I must say that it feels a little like groundhog day: we are here again to discuss a Treasury statutory instrument that would make provisions for the financial regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. On each such occasion, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelled out our objections to secondary legislation being used in this manner, as well as the challenges of ensuring proper scrutiny of the sheer volume of legislation that passes through Delegated Legislation Committees. We have expressed many times our frustration about having to spend time and resources creating a framework that might never be used, and about the public money that has been spent on planning for what should not be viewed as a potential eventuality.

Because of the dangerous game now being played, statutory instruments considered by Committees such as this may not disappear into the ether on 29 March. They could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book, so they need proper and in-depth scrutiny. Equally, we must bear in mind the stress that financial markets would be under in the scenario that the Government allowed such a situation to materialise. Such instruments must be considered through that lens.

The draft regulations follow on from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. I do not want to rerun the many issues of contention that were debated during the passage of that Act, but I think a few significant points that relate to the draft regulations bear further scrutiny, and I hope the Minister will respond to them.

First, it would be helpful to have further information about how the FCA will assess equivalence of third countries’ legislation, compared with that of EU countries, following the fourth money laundering directive. Will it use the Commission’s list initially and then expand or contract it in the future? If so, what methodology and resources will be used to undertake that? Such a process could obviously be very resource-intensive—a point that I shall come back to later.

Secondly, and relatedly, the existing legislation refers to the Commission’s high-risk third country list. The draft regulations would onshore the EU list as of exit day and then commit the UK to updating the list. I understand from debates in the other place that that would be undertaken via the affirmative procedure for reasons of speed.

Has the Government’s thinking developed on enabling parliamentary scrutiny of changes to that list? Clearly, there is a need for speed, but that surely has to be balanced with appropriate oversight. As with sanctions policy, it would surely make sense to co-ordinate this with the EU, even if it is not done formally, given the potential resource implications of having to research many different jurisdictions speedily. We do not have an indication in the accompanying notes of how that process would occur.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I was going to ask a question in a similar vein about the high-risk countries. I would have less concern if the same list as the EU was used on day one. However, looking for comfort in the future, if the list is going to be changed, and particularly if it will diverge from the EU’s list, parliamentary scrutiny should be brought to bear on that.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We have seen a lot of contention around the definition of which countries go on the list. There have been criticisms, even at EU level, of how transparent or otherwise that process has been for countries going on or coming off the list. It is therefore important that we get it right if we end up adopting this process in the UK. We need to make sure that it is fully transparent and accountable. It can have a significant impact on the jurisdictions that are affected, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point.

Thirdly, I hope the Government will make clear what our co-operation with the EU on anti-money laundering efforts will look like in the future. Currently, we only seem to have the ubiquitous phrase that on this issue the Government are seeking a “deep and special” future relationship with the EU. The Minister provided us with a little more in his comments, saying that we would continue to engage with international processes—I am sorry I did not catch his exact wording.

We need more detail on this. That is important, given the current developments with the recast of the EU’s anti-money laundering machinery, including its decision to implement more transparency for trusts. The UK’s trust register, as I understand it, is not yet complete and it is not publicly available, even to the limited extent that is proposed in the reform of the anti-money laundering regime. That reform would cover business-like trusts and enable their beneficial owners—or the people who would benefit from their proceeds—to be viewable by those who could prove a legitimate interest in knowing about them, for example journalists as well as law enforcement agencies. That would go beyond the UK regime. It would be helpful to know how we, as a nation, envisage co-ordinating with that process.

We also need more information, given the continuing role of UK-based structures in facilitating hidden transactions. I was astonished to see, in response to a parliamentary question I tabled, that the Government’s loudly promoted crackdown on Scottish limited partnerships has been anything but. In October 2018, there were no less than 3,542 SLPs that said they could not reveal ownership information—which is, of course, now required by law—because of their own failure to obtain that information, and more than 600 that said they could not provide it because, despite knowing who their people of significant control were, they had not been able to collect the required particulars from them. Those figures had only reduced by almost a third and 12% respectively over the previous year, so there really has not been a crackdown in this area, despite what was promised. That is problematic, particularly when other countries are looking nervously at what is happening in relation to these shell companies in our jurisdiction, including EU countries.

Fourthly, I am unclear about one element of drafting. Regulation 8(b)(i) changes an emphatic “must” to a weak “may”, to coin a phrase—I am sorry, I could not help myself. Specifically, the amended regulations will state that the commissioners—HMRC—may, rather than must,

“make arrangements to ensure that the NCA are able to use information on the register to respond promptly to a request for information about the persons referred to in”

different regulations. It is not clear to me why that change has occurred. It seems to weaken the language and there is no explanation of it in the memorandum. Surely the parameters for such co-ordination are critical, especially in a context in which we lack any indication from the Government of when they will introduce their promised offence of failure to prevent economic crime, despite the consultation on the subject having ended many months ago.

Fifthly, and perhaps most substantially, there is—as with so many recent statutory instruments—a question about resourcing. Regulation 5(3)(b) grants the FCA the power to make further technical standards relating to the area. FCA funding has been increased by £5 million to cover withdrawal work, but as far as I can see, that is just to aid the transition; there does not seem to be any commitment to maintain increased funding to allow it to use the new powers that it has been given via such instruments. The FCA’s annual business plan includes the following statement about EU withdrawal:

“Although our Annual Funding Requirement has increased by £5m to cover EU Withdrawal work, we have still made difficult and challenging decisions about our priority activities across all business areas that are not related to work on EU Withdrawal, including limiting the number of new initiatives we’ve taken on. We recognise the particular significance of EU Withdrawal on wholesale financial markets, investment management and the general insurance sectors, and our decisions have been driven by our recognition of the capacity of industry to absorb change.”

Just yesterday, I discussed with the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner his concerns about resourcing for the FCA with respect to adequately identifying and prosecuting fraud—not an area that is covered by the EU withdrawal process, but one that needs to be provided for appropriately. There still seems to be a lack of recognition from the Government about the impact of this SI and others on the FCA’s existing work programme. The FCA’s activity was criticised in FATF’s assessment last month for having cited only eight firms and collected just £254 million in penalties for anti-money laundering violations over the past five years. The Minister mentioned OPBAS; I am sure that he will be aware that the supervision of professions, which was meant to be tightened up, streamlined and made more coherent through OPBAS, was another area criticised in FATF’s assessment.

Interestingly, the draft regulations make no mention of the National Crime Agency, despite concerns expressed in the FATF report about the lack of resources for the NCA, particularly its financial intelligence unit. The Committee may be aware that there has been considerable debate in the specialist press about whether the UK’s glowing assessment by FATF was warranted, particularly given the lack of action to better resource the NCA—an issue highlighted in FATF’s last evaluation in 2007, which stated that

“the UK financial intelligence unit needs a substantial increase in its resources and the suspicious activity reporting regime needs to be modernised and reformed.”

FATF also flagged continuing problems with the lack of verification of data on the Companies House register, a subject that I have repeatedly raised in the House. Because of the FIU’s lack of resources, FATF concluded that it

“misses the opportunity to search for criminal activity that might otherwise be missed by”

investigators who

“mine the SARs database for issues linked to their own geographical or operational remits.”

I understand that the UK assigns only nine employees to analyse hundreds of thousands of suspicious activity reports, or SARs, each year.

Back in 2007, the UK pledged that it would significantly increase the staffing level of the FIU to 200, but press reports from last October suggested that it has only 80 full-time employees and that the unit has actually lost one in five of its staff over the past 11 years. Apparently, the Government have committed to increasing staffing in this area, so it would be enormously helpful if the Minister provided some assurances on that score. It is not just the FCA that works on money-laundering issues, but the FIU in the NCA, so we need to know that it will be adequately resourced.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Thursday 29th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for those helpful clarifications. I note in particular his determination that the provisions should foster continuity with existing provisions in the short term. That seems very sensible. I hope that, even if the Government are not willing to accept Labour’s call for sunset clauses, they will at least take on board our concerns that there must be appropriate ongoing scrutiny of the measures. Above all, they must not go beyond the scope of ensuring that there is an operable regime following whatever negotiations they have.

Many of those areas are very important for our constituents. I am sure that the Minister will remember the discussion that we had around tobacco excise recently in the Finance Bill. I had concerns about the stripping away of public health support for people to stop smoking, at the same time that duties are going up, and about the implications there might be for low-income people. We need to make sure when there is a fundamental change that we have the ability to properly debate and discuss it in the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 48 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 51

Power to make provision in relation to VAT or duties of customs or excise

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 51, page 34, line 39, leave out second “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment provides that the power to make regulations about VAT, customs duty and excise duty in consequence of UK withdrawal from the EU is only exercised when it is necessary to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Commencement

[Anneliese Dodds]

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 55, page 38, line 15, leave out

“on the day on which this Act is passed”

and insert

“when the condition in section (Pre-commencement review: resource implications for HMRC) is met”

This amendment is consequential on NC9.

[Anneliese Dodds]

To make things totally clear, amendments 17 and 20 are consequential on new clause 9, so I will focus on that. The new clause would insert provision for pre-commencement review into the Bill. That relates to clause 55, which is about the conditions for commencement. We have asked for the HMRC commissioners to carry out a review that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would then lay before the House. We have asked for that review to examine a number of areas, such as whether the appropriate staffing requirements have been met for the Bill to be implemented properly, the extent to which information technology is ready for implementing the Bill’s provisions and the extent to which the Government believe that all the requirements in the Bill have been met.

The new clause is necessary for a variety of reasons; I will not go through all of them, because we covered some of the material when we talked on Tuesday about a review of resources in relation to the authorised economic operators scheme and the SNP amendment. None the less, there are matters that it is important this Committee covers before we finish. We heard some compelling evidence from witnesses last week who talked about changes that have occurred within HMRC and the resourcing of the customs element of HMRC. In particular, they talked about how a helpline for businesses with customs problems had been removed, the potential impacts of the new regionalised system for HMRC, and how the removal of local offices would mean that HMRC staff will no longer have a physical presence in Scotland north of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and none on the whole south coast of England. The Minister responded by saying that of course customs officials would be able to travel. Yes, that is definitely the case, but as someone who has frequently had to get to Dover by road and by public transport, I can say that that is often not easy. There are significant concerns about that.

There are also continuing worries about whether staff numbers are appropriate. We had a little bit of discussion about that at close of play on Tuesday, again in relation to an SNP amendment. The Minister said then that it was possible that, to deal with the requirements of the Government’s approach, the number of customs officers might increase from 5,000, according to figures submitted to the World Customs Organisation, by between 3,000 and 5,000. Let us say that they increase by 5,000 to 10,000, doubling the current number. I have redone the calculations that I did last Tuesday. That would mean that every British customs officer would still be required to process about 7,700 customs declarations a year. That is still substantially more than their counterparts in other countries: 20 times more than in Australia, six times more than in America, almost twice as many as in Norway and about 20% more than their Swiss counterparts, who seem to process the largest number after the UK, by my calculations on comparable countries. That is without the many additional declarations that might come if the Government decide not to form part of a customs union with the rest of the EU. Therefore, there are legitimate questions to ask about whether HMRC really has the capacity to deliver what is being asked of it.

That is particularly important today. I understand that there are leaked documents suggesting that the EU is concerned that the UK might seek to undercut standards, particularly on taxation requirements. I am not sure whether it mentions customs in that regard, but it is important for the UK to send out a strong message that we want to uphold standards—particularly on something like customs, where there is the potential for a large amount of fraud that could affect other countries, but also on many allied problems mentioned by our witnesses, such as phytosanitary measures, veterinary standards, control of illegal trafficking of goods and so forth. I hope that the Government will give us a strong commitment to properly review resources. We need more than what we have already.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I completely agree with everything that the hon. Lady is saying. It is important for businesses to have certainty about how the extra resourcing will work—if there is extra resourcing—so that they will know how to interact and have confidence that the system will work after exit or implementation day.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support. Due to the changes to the deployment of HMRC in Scotland, the issue is very relevant to many of her constituents. I am pleased that the Government seem to be moving in the right direction. We have a commitment to more staff, which is positive, and the Minister’s responses to my written questions seem to focus more on additional numbers and less on redeployment, as they did in the concerning responses previously. Surely, given the potentially increased amount of activity that a new customs regime would necessitate, we need to be on stronger ground if we are to avoid a difficult time for British businesses and retaliatory measures from the rest of the EU if it feels that we are not upholding our obligations.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

If the Government amended the Bill to specify “appropriate data protection legislation”, rather than “the Data Protection Act 1998”, that would fix the problem and ensure that the correct legislation is used. I am sure that the Minister has listened, so I will not press the amendment to the vote, but I hope the Government will make reasonable changes on Report or at another stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 30

General provision for the purposes of import duty

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 30, page 18, line 9, at end insert—

“(2) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.

(3) In this section, “exit day” has the meaning given by section 14(1) (interpretation) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and subsections (2) to (5) of that section apply to the term under this section as they apply to the term in that Act.”.

This amendment limits the duration of the delegated power under Clause 30 to the period ending two years after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Amendments 89 to 96 would have a number of different effects. If the Committee will allow me, I will talk through all of them, and all the surrounding details.

Amendment 89 would subject regulations made under certain provisions of schedule 4 to the made affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure, and would ensure a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny. Particularly in schedules 4 and 5, which amendment 90 relates to, the Government have left an awful lot to regulation. I understand that the Bill is a framework Bill, but we could really do with a bit more information around it. If there had been more information, we would not need to make these calls to move things up the agenda, in terms of requesting more scrutiny.

We have concerns about how the Trade Remedies Authority will operate, and how it will decide things such as the amount of injury that has been sustained. The Government have not yet provided enough information on that. It is not reasonable for the Government to do such things by the negative procedure, rather than either the made affirmative procedure or the super-affirmative procedure. Amendments 91 and 92 would subject certain regulations to the super-affirmative procedure, instead of leaving them subject to the negative procedure.

We heard concerns during the evidence sessions about how trade remedies would work. As I have said previously, the Government are asking us to trust them an awful lot on this, but because they have not been responsible for this area in recent years, as the UK has been part of what the EU has done, they do not have a track record. We cannot just take it on trust that they will do the right thing; in fact, we have already criticised their choice to have the lesser duty rule, for example. Clearly, the UK Government are already making decisions that we would not like them to make.

The Government are asking us to trust them, and to accept negative procedure, which makes it very difficult for parliamentarians to be involved in the scrutiny of legislation. That is a real concern. Amendments 89 to 92 would therefore subject regulations under schedules 4 and 5 to a higher level of scrutiny. I do not consider that an unreasonable ask in the light of the importance of this issue, particularly to industries such as steel and chemicals that rely on trade remedies to continue producing, selling and competing in the domestic market. Amendment 93 is consequential on amendment 92.

Amendment 94 would delete clause 42(1) and thus remove from the Bill the proviso that direct EU legislation on VAT would no longer have effect in the UK. It would ensure that EU legislation affecting VAT and the operation of the common VAT area would continue to have effect in the UK for the transitional period. The amendment is important because it would address concerns raised by the British Retail Consortium about replacing acquisition VAT with import VAT.

Losing membership of the EU VAT area in just over a year’s time would cause major problems for businesses, including with cash flow, because they would end up having to pay VAT on goods before they were released. Businesses planning for the future are having to make projections now without having all the information about what the VAT position will be. If the Minister makes it clear that the Government will continue with their apparent intention to replace acquisition VAT with import VAT, significant changes will be required, either in how businesses operate or in how HMRC ensures businesses pay VAT.

We do not suggest in any way that businesses should not be liable for VAT. Our concern relates to cash flow. We suggest that businesses should not have to pay VAT on goods the second they hit UK shores. Perhaps they should be able to roll it up and pay it quarterly or in some other way that makes cash flow easier.

The UK Government have not been as clear as they could be on this. If the Minister is unequivocal in his desire for us to move to import VAT, and if he states unequivocally that there will be no scheme for VAT deferral, businesses will be incredibly unhappy, but at least we will have more clarity. It would be pretty devastating for businesses in a number of ways, but at least they will able to factor it into their projections. It would be useful to have more clarity on whether we are leaving the EU VAT area and whether, if we move from acquisition VAT to import VAT, there will be more opportunities for deferral.

It would be better for the Government to keep open the possibility of remaining in the EU VAT area, which clause 32 seems to rule out. If we leave the EU VAT area, we will lose the triangulation simplification exemption—I am glad to have my teeth in this morning so that I can say that. The exemption currently provides a simplification mechanism that means that UK-based businesses do not have to register for VAT in various EU countries. If we leave the EU VAT area, not only will they have to contend with cash flow issues and moving from acquisition VAT to import VAT; they will also have to register for VAT in those other European countries, as well as in the UK. It seems to me that that issue has not been adequately discussed.

We do not have enough clarity about the Government’s intentions. I have made this case before, but it would be useful to know the Government’s desired direction of travel, even if the eventual outcome of negotiations is different. Do the Government intend to leave the EU VAT area but retain some elements of triangulation simplification?

[Anneliese Dodds]

It might be useful to mention the enormous problems faced by microbusinesses when they had to comply with the reduction in the threshold for VAT applied to digital services within the EU. Even without having to register in those different countries, but simply paying the VAT, that was a huge adjustment that many firms had to make. Would it not be much more of a problem if we had the approach that the hon. Lady describes?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. For a number of businesses, particularly those that are quite small and do a lot of exporting and importing, VAT is a major part of their costs and they have to deal with that on a regular basis. There would be a disproportionate impact particularly on smaller businesses were there to be changes without sufficient notice.

The effect of amendment 95 would be to ensure that the UK Government do not exclude aspects of the UK’s participating in the EU VAT area or in the EU’s principal VAT directive by delegated legislation. The amendment would ensure that there is more parliamentary scrutiny around any changes. We have been clear that we want more parliamentary scrutiny. The evidence sessions that we had were useful because we had people here talking about actual impacts on actual businesses and not just the impacts that the policy makers might think will take place. It was useful to learn about some of the technicalities.

We might have legislation and changes made in future by delegated legislation with no ability for us to have written and oral evidence and all of those people coming together to ensure that those of us in Parliament who make the laws are as well briefed as possible and able to make the best possible decisions. That is one of the most important things specifically in the area of VAT. I do not think many people in the House of Commons are expert in VAT. I am sure there are some, but not a huge number. We would have to be incredibly lucky to have all of them on a delegated legislation Committee and to have enough knowledge in the room to make reasonable decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I can remind my hon. Friend of what Mr Blackwell said. In relation to the 150 delegated powers, he said:

“Some of the justifications I am struggling with, particularly as regards the use of urgency and non-urgency. I think time is an issue here, particularly if you do not have the backstop of further scrutiny by a Chamber—the second House—that is usually very good at looking at delegated legislation”.—[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 53, Q77.]

He was absolutely clear and unambiguous that this really was not a way to do matters of this nature.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It has been an interesting debate, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to start it. I really do appreciate some of the clarification that has been given by the Minister, particularly around moving from acquisition to import VAT. As I said earlier, I do not want to press any of these amendments, because I would like to return to them at Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I beg to move amendment 121, in clause 32, page 19, line 33, at end insert—

‘(5A) Subsections (2) and (5) are subject to section (Affirmative procedure: further provisions).’

This amendment, together with New Clause 14, provides that the made affirmative procedure under Clause 32 is only used in specified circumstances and that, in other circumstances, the draft affirmative procedure is used.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mrs Main.

Like many of the Opposition’s amendments, amendments 55 and 56 try to improve the legal certainty in the Bill. They would ensure that reviews could not normally be opened into measures that were less than one year old, in line with EU practice, and that duties remained in place while reviews were conducted. With no restriction on the time period before which reviews can be initiated, the UK again appears to be ploughing its own furrow and going against the international direction of travel. I note from much of the previous debate and the comments from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who rightly indicated that the average cycle for this kind of remedy is five years, that it is a long-term cycle, and without the expectation of review before the remedy having been in place for one year.

Since reviews can be initiated after an interested party asks for one, WTO rules require a reasonable time to have elapsed since the imposition of definitive measures, and that has almost always, from what I can see, been interpreted as being at least one year. The only exception seems to be the US, where the standard review period is one year, but that is apparently unusual. In the EU, at least a year must have passed.

The problem with earlier reviews is that they could be administratively costly, after having put a remedy into action, and that they would reduce the predictability of the trade remedies regime. The latter is surely essential for the long-term health of British manufacturing, which needs to know that the business environment will not change radically in the very short term. With uncertainty appearing to be one of the factors underlying the current low levels of private sector investment in the UK, we surely must ensure that trade remedies are proportionate and do not make our British firms less secure than if they were based in other industrialised countries.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Lady makes a compelling case and I want to reassure her that Scottish National party Members will support the Labour party in the incredibly sensible move it looks to make, particularly with amendment 55.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the SNP’s support. The amendments focus on trying to provide the certainty that the Bill lacks but which is present in other trade remedies systems. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government have considered inserting such a provision in the Bill, in line with international practice? If not, will he say why not, given that no other country seems routinely to allow a review before a year has passed?

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

We tabled the amendments because the proposed market share requirements will not only put us out of step with comparable nations but stop action being taken to prevent uncompetitive disruption of infant industries. According to the Government’s proposals, applications to the TRA for an investigation will be subject to a UK market share threshold. As with so much in the Bill—as we have been discussing—we do not know how the threshold will be determined nor what its range is likely to be, let alone the actual value for different industrial sectors. The Government have given as their explanation for the measure the filtering out of cases with little chance of success. Yet, as already discussed in Committee, the Government have already set out a range of tests that must be passed before any action can be taken—tests that are already more stringent than is the case under EU legislation, and considerably stronger than those that the EU is moving towards.

I normally agree fully with every word that is uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, but I did not completely agree when he said that he was pleased to hear the Government saying, or hinting at least, that we would have a system at least as favourable to British industry as the existing one. With the different tests to do with economic interest or public interest, whether those applied by the TRA or the Secretary of State, that regime is far more stringent than that applied by the EU.

In addition, I am concerned that the measure proposed in the Bill could cause a lot of ambiguity and be problematic for the TRA. We are informed that the TRA must accept an application that meets the UK market share threshold, although of course both it and the Secretary of State can then decide not to proceed as a result of their overly stringent tests once they get into the investigation—but let us leave that aside. If an application does not meet the UK threshold but does meet WTO thresholds, the TRA may use its discretion as to whether to accept it. However, we can legitimately ask why the TRA should be put in a potentially difficult position, especially when legal action could be levelled against it by the company that is deemed to have engaged in dumping precisely because the TRA has used that discretion.

In addition, I do not understand why the UK has decided to adopt an apparently higher threshold of market share before applications may be accepted when, according to the stakeholders I have talked to, no other country seems to have adopted that approach. This is not about criteria within the investigation: it is about the criteria necessary before an investigation is allowed at all. As with the unique electoral system that led to the hanging chad problem in the US, there is a clear reason why this approach is so unique: it is not workable. The Minister rightly referred to learning from best practice, so it would be helpful for us to know which countries have that test in place before an investigation can be started and why it was believed that this is best practice. I have so far not been able to find any countries that operate such a system. If there are some, it would be wonderful to hear about them.

The Minister suggested in his previous remarks that, much of the time, all the Government are doing is simply transposing WTO requirements. However, the terms of the general agreement on tariffs and trade enable countries to take action, particularly to prevent uncompetitive disruption to infant industries. That could be prevented by this kind of test before an investigation can even be started. That process of uncompetitive disruption to infant industries is known as material retardation, which is quite a well-known concept when it comes to trade disputes and is interpreted quite broadly.

Rules within the Mercosur agreement—the South American trade agreement—state that countries can take measures, first, to ensure that infant industries can be established, but also that there can be, without uncompetitive disruption, the establishment of a new branch of production in an existing industry, the substantial transformation of an existing industry or the substantial expansion of an existing industry supplying a relatively small proportion of domestic demand. That is a very wide reading of what measures against material retardation can enable, and a broad reading of the concept of an infant industry as well. Those rules are already in action in the Mercosur agreement, so I hope the Minister will clearly explain why the UK should deny itself those kind of powers that other countries seem keen to avail themselves of.

I hope he will also indicate how he envisages that market share restriction working, which will be used even before investigations start. I read the “Trade Remedies Research” paper, produced by Van Bael & Bellis and Copenhagen Economics, which I am sure other Members have looked at as well. They looked in great detail at some of the methodological issues relating to the use of trade remedies and they indicated in detail the variety of considerations relevant to calculating market share that the EU has used once an investigation has opened—not as part of a test to determine the opening of an investigation but as part of determining the harm caused by dumping.

They indicated the potential drawbacks of, for example, setting a quantitative measure on the evolution of import volumes in relative terms—in comparison with domestic consumption—in order to determine how the market share of foreign exporters against UK industry has changed over time following dumped imports. That is because our market in the UK is small, and so domestic consumption can vary dramatically from year to year because the number of industry operators tends to be more concentrated.

There are some very difficult methodological issues here when it comes to calculations that might be involved in an investigation. We are talking about the TRA having to carry out calculations potentially with a similar level of methodological difficulty, even before an investigation is opened. Will the Minister indicate what kind of methodology he proposes to avoid those problems? Above all, will he please let us know why our country seems to be adopting this approach, which, as I say, I cannot find any analogue for in comparable nations?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will say just a few things to follow on from the shadow Front Benchers on this. It is strange that market share is being used in this regard as something that will be taken into account. It is almost as if the TRA cannot be bothered to investigate a company if it does not have a certain market share. For that industry, and for manufacturers in particular, it does not matter what their percentage of market share is; what matters is the injury that is being done to them by dumping. Market share is not relevant, and I do not understand why it is included in the Bill. It may be relevant to the Treasury because it affects the tax take it gets from the industry, but it is not relevant to the protection we should be affording to the industry.

This proposal has geographical implications, given that these new goods will be made in the industrial north of the country. Those products may not meet the market share threshold, but they may be incredibly innovative and may improve productivity and make this country a better place to be. Those things will not be taken into account.

I have argued previously that if the fishing industry is decimated as a result of Brexit, that is a geographical issue for the affected communities. It does not have a massive implication for the Treasury’s tax take, but it does for those communities. I fear that this market share test is not only unnecessary, but has implications for the choices that communities make.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

I did not say “any”. I said that there would not be scrutiny of the type that is necessary and of an appropriate thoroughness, which would not be of a one-shot nature whereby it is difficult to have the kind of debate that we all think is necessary, given the impact that the provisions could have on major sectors of our industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Preferential rates given unilaterally

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 10, page 6, line 35, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must consult on a proposed version of any regulations to be made under this section before making them.”

This amendment requires the Treasury to consult prior to making regulations establishing preferential rates for developing countries.

The amendment is about consulting on a proposed version of any regulations to be made under the section before making them. This would make sure that relevant people are consulted in advance, specifically in the case of unilateral preferences. The Minister previously argued about the processes that are gone through in advance of the signing of international agreements, but those are slightly different in relation to this clause. We are specifically talking about consultation. Again, we have been clear that there is not enough consultation throughout, and more consultation would be appropriate.

As amendment 108 is about unilateral preferences, we think that consultation is necessary. It is absolutely clear that unilateral preferences, particularly those relating to these provisions, and the reasons for unilateral preferences, are good—they are sensible in relation to our least developed countries—but we must also ensure that relevant stakeholders are consulted.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady said. We heard on Tuesday some of businesses’ concerns about consultation even relative to the Bill. It is important, when we move on to its exact provisions, that we have proper consultative mechanisms. I have certainly benefited hugely from the input into the process around the Bill and information from the Fairtrade Foundation and Traidcraft. If this Government are truly committed to policy coherence for development, it is important that they ensure that non-governmental organisations with expertise on the ground in international development can comment on preferential trade decisions, which could have a significant impact on different nations.

I was encouraged by what the Minister said to me when we talked about ensuring policy coherence for development when it comes to tax treaties. We need to ensure that that is the reality for our preferential trading regimes as well. One way to do that is by having appropriate consultation with experts in the area.

Finally, the Library note to the Bill, which was enormously useful as always, says that,

“the Government argues that the negative procedure is appropriate here as regulations might be lengthy, technical, frequently changed, not yet known and/or administrative.”

The note goes on to indicate what the EU process is for such schemes. It is quite different from what the Government propose:

“The regulations setting out the current EU scheme…were adopted by the EU Parliament and Council”,

meaning that there was debate within both those organisations. Our country is represented in the Council, and our MEPs represent us in the European Parliament. Then there are

“provisions allowing technical/routine updates through Commission delegated regulations.”

Again, delegated regulations can involve thorough scrutiny. I suggest that in many ways, it is far easier for an MEP to trigger a debate on a piece of delegated legislation on the Floor of the European Parliament than for an MP to do so in the British Parliament, certainly when the negative procedure is used, but also, potentially, when the affirmative procedure is used, given the arithmetic of Committees mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. It is enormously important that we have proper scrutiny of such provisions. One way of embedding that is by having appropriate consultation. We support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 10, page 7, line 5, at end insert “and—

(c) may make provision about the restoration or reinstatement of the nil rate band.”

This amendment places beyond doubt that regulations may reinstate the nil rate band after suspension or withdrawal.

This amendment comes from the Law Society of Scotland. It was a kind of tidying-up exercise that we suggest would be helpful in the clause. Clause 10(3)(b) allows the trade preference scheme to

“make provision about the suspension and withdrawal of the application of the nil rate.”

I am sure this is unintentional, but it does not make provision to reinstate or restore the nil-rate band, if it is necessary to do so. It is just a slight technical change suggested by the Law Society of Scotland, allowing for the restoration of the nil-rate band if that is what the Government need to do.

[Anneliese Dodds]

This seems like a sensible amendment, particularly because accessing that nil rate is crucial for so many nations. If there is ambiguity around the conditions, they need to be clarified. Definition, initially, as a least-developed country, is partly with reference to vulnerability to economic shocks. Inability to access that nil-rate, or inability have it reinstated when it should be, could cause economic shocks. As we know, the value of access to the nil-rate to UK markets for least-developed countries is incredibly important—it is £323 million a year. It is important that we have no ambiguity and are absolutely crystal clear.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

Q Thank you, Mrs Main. In response to the points already made, surely it is not just about the preparedness of parliamentarians, but also the preparedness of the Government and Ministers to answer questions that are asked about the detail of the legislation that they are meant in theory to be ready to defend.

The question that I wanted to ask was, do you think there might be a role for sunset clauses in relation to some pieces of delegated legislation?

Joel Blackwell: I warmly welcome the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, which took the unusual step of publishing its report on this Bill while it was still in the Commons, as it did with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Usually it waits until its introduction in the Lords. The report raised the issue of sunset clauses, which are very important in terms of the links between making changes to EU law in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and doing that through clauses 42, 45, 47 and 51. It makes valid comments on the potential of those powers. The powers are not required to be used in perpetuity, and sunset clauses, such as the ones inserted for clauses 7, 8 and 9, would bring some consistency, and that makes perfect sense. We would support the view of the Delegated Powers Committee on that point.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Q On the different procedures for delegated powers—the negative procedure, the made affirmative, the draft affirmative and the super-affirmative procedures—in this Bill specifically, do you feel the balance is right? Or do you feel, for example, that there are too many negative procedures, which are quite difficult for parliamentarians to get involved with?

Joel Blackwell: The negative procedure is the default procedure for scrutiny of delegated legislation, and in this Bill that represents that fact; the majority are subject to the negative procedure. Again, referring to the Delegated Powers Committee report, we would agree with the clauses they highlight that they think are negative and should be affirmative, particularly the ones that are what we call Henry VIII powers amending primary legislation. That Committee has always said that there needs to be a compelling reason why a negative procedure would be adequate for Henry VIII powers. Reading the delegated powers note, I cannot see a compelling reason; I think they should be made affirmative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Q With all the issues that have been raised, especially about the negative procedure and the ways in which the House of Commons can scrutinise this, given it is not going to the Lords particularly, do you think this is a good way to do things or would there be a better way?

Joel Blackwell: I think that the Hansard Society would like to see an equivalent Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, first off, in the lower House—or some MP in the composition of a Joint Committee or what have you. That would be a good opportunity.

I think that delegated powers notes are extremely useful documents. This one is 174 pages long. There are well over 150 delegated powers in the Bill. Some of the justifications I am struggling with, particularly as regards the use of urgency and non-urgency. I think time is an issue here, particularly if you do not have the backstop of further scrutiny by a Chamber—the second House—that is usually very good at looking at delegated legislation and has taking the lead on it in the past.

When we were doing a similar Bill, which became the Welfare Reform Act 2012, a call by many MPs on the Public Bill Committee at the time was that it would be really useful if they had draft regulations alongside the scrutiny of the Bill. You could do things like that to improve scrutiny of delegated powers but, fundamentally, the lack of representation, the fact that you would have to wait for the Bill to get to the House of Lords for a report to be published, is an issue.

Perhaps one way around that is that the House of Lords Delegated Powers Committee does what it has done for this Bill and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and publishes, as usual practice, the Bill as soon as it enters the House of Commons.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Q I have two quick questions. One is to ask you to comment on the use of not just secondary but tertiary legislation in this Bill on public notice law. That would be helpful for us. Secondly, in our previous discussion we talked a lot about the new Trade Remedies Authority, and some of the witnesses suggested that the Secretary of State will be able to overrule its suggestions, without, it appears, any parliamentary process underlying that. I wonder whether the Hansard Society has any comments on that.

Joel Blackwell: On the first point, with regards to sub-delegation or tertiary legislation and this use of public notice, the fact that they will not be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny is concerning. We basically reiterate the points made in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee: that if public notices can do the same as regulations they should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, just as regulations would be. Sub-delegation is an issue for us because there is a lack of parliamentary scrutiny. In some cases it might not be appropriate, but it should still be considered as usual practice, and at the moment it appears not to be.

With regard to the Trade Remedies Authority, the Hansard Society has not really considered that yet. My colleague Brigid has probably, as I speak, just finished on the Trade Bill, so I am happy to write to the Committee about our points on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Q We heard earlier that some suppliers are leaving their supply chains, for example, in order not to have to go through a border process, particularly for things that come in and then go out again from the UK. Are you seeing that from people and organisations that you are in touch with, or is that just an “out there” thing that is not really happening very much?

Tim Reardon: We hear a lot of talk about it, but I think on every route that has published its traffic stats for last year the freight volumes have risen from what they were in 2016. First, of course, that is a national success story; it is an indication of economic health. It is great for all the businesses that we all represent, which handle that traffic, but of course it means that the system overall is increasingly full. There is not a great deal of spare capacity cumulatively across the UK.

The issue is more than just space on the terminal. The road network serves two or three main gateway points into and out of the UK. There needs to be a really good-quality landside connection from the terminal, to enable it to flourish; it needs more than just space on the berth. It would be very, very difficult to flick a switch and say, “Actually, the traffic will go somewhere else”.

Richard Ballantyne: Towards the end of last year, there was a new direct service from Zeebrugge to Dublin for roll-on roll-off traffic, and there was a lot of noise about, “Look! That’s a consequence of Brexit”, but when you actually looked into that investment, it was probably made before the referendum. There may be people looking at further direct calls from the Republic of Ireland to continental Europe, but as of yet we have not seen them.

Robert Windsor: Many of my members are multinationals —European-based forwarders. I know that there are discussions about this issue, which is inevitable given the situation, but we have not seen anything move yet, as such. What we are receiving is a lot of inquiries from European-based freight forwarders with no UK base who are inquiring whether they can establish in the UK because they obviously see an opportunity the other way round.

Richard Ballantyne: The warehousing industry is looking at potential new sites because they see that there could be further interruptions to trade flows, where they would need more storage.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Q I have a question related to what happened back in 2015 with the first major Operation Stack problems in Kent. They were not caused initially by developments on the British side; it was due to problems on the French side. The capacity issues on the French side were very relevant. To what extent are you aware of activity happening in our partner ports to prepare for a no-deal scenario? Are you discovering that talking to your colleagues in other countries? Are you aware of the UK Government doing anything to promote that preparedness?

Richard Ballantyne: The British Ports Association is part of the European Sea Ports Organisation, which has a meeting tomorrow on Brexit that I am going to. It includes some of the main UK-facing ports, such as Dublin, Zeebrugge, Calais and beyond. It has been quite difficult. Some of those ports are state-owned, and it is quite difficult for the UK Government to talk with them, although there have been a number of information-type visits looking at customs arrangements as they are and what the operational situation will look like post-Brexit. We have good conversations.

In terms of what is going on with the customs authorities in those countries, it is varied. There is a French customs taskforce—that is an internal taskforce—that I think the ports there are plugged into. I went to see the French ports association to talk about Brexit, and it seemed on top of things, but it is a difficult one. There is a lot of mystery there. Just as the UK Government cannot divulge all the discussions they are having, the ports cannot divulge everything to us. They have to remember that negotiations are being led through the European Commission, so that is the correct avenue.

Finance Bill

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

Again, I would be very careful to separate out tribunal awards that are made in the context of discrimination at work, which is not what we are talking about, from awards that might relate to redundancy, which is what we are focused on. In relation to discrimination generally, there has been a long-running discussion about what the rates should be for different bands. If one looks at the average award, or, even better, the median award, we are not talking about massive sums of money. It is very important that the public receive that message. For example, someone who has experienced discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is generally receiving much less than £10,000—I regret that I cannot recall the exact figure. It is very important that we do not give the impression that people are somehow holding companies to ransom in this area. Indeed, that is perhaps underlying some of the change that has been forced on the Government through the court decision that we should not have tribunal fees, because these tribunals are being used not vexatiously, but purposely for people to protect their rights at work.

In conclusion, Labour’s message on this Finance Bill is clear. We felt that it offered an opportunity to reboot our economy, to deal with our massive productivity challenges and our cost of living crisis, and to shore up public finances by sealing loopholes for the very best-off people and biggest multinational companies. Instead, we have a series of missed opportunities and measures focused on soft targets, rather than on those who can afford expensive accountants and engage in complex schemes to avoid tax.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The House will be delighted to know that I do not intend to speak for very long. We have discussed this matter a number of times before. It is important to note that this measure is a revenue-raising one; the aim is to make £430 million for the Government. However we paint it, these workers are facing redundancy. They are receiving the pay-out at the same time as losing their jobs, so they are vulnerable by their very nature, and are having to think carefully and reassess how they go forward. This additional money will go to the Government, rather than to these workers who are being made redundant. For that reason, the Scottish National party will support the Labour party’s calls, particularly those regarding termination payments.

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is welcome that the Government are looking to reduce the administrative burden in relation to elections for oilfields to become non-taxable. That is positive news. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned in two Budgets that there will be changes in the taxation system to make it easier for late-life assets to be transferred. I have heard noises from the Chancellor in recent times that he may not introduce that in the autumn statement this year, and I will just make this pitch to the Minister. This issue is incredibly important. The oil and gas industry is not asking at this moment for significant changes, but for the change in relation to the transfer of late-life assets. I would very much appreciate it if, in the context of reducing the administrative burden and making things easier for companies dealing with the very mature field in the North sea, the Minister would hear my case on that and make the case to the Chancellor.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I must admit to being slightly confused about the purported impact of this change. Some of the inputs from stakeholder bodies seem to imply that there will be some kind of Revenue impact as a result of the changes in relation to procedures for elections for oilfields to become non-taxable. For example, Oil & Gas UK has welcomed the change, saying that the move will reduce the headline rate of tax paid on UK oil and gas production. In contrast, Friends of the Earth has expressed disappointment at the tax cut. As I understand it, petroleum revenue tax was permanently zero-rated in 2016, and the Government’s assessment of the measure’s impact on the Exchequer is that it will be negligible. Therefore, can the Minister enlighten us on why some people appear to view the measure as potentially having an Exchequer impact, but the Government do not appear to have that view?

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I agree that this could apply to a range of different facilities. In many circumstances, this kind of arrangement is the only way to keep those facilities going. We could see them entirely disappear—we all know about the sad disappearance of community pubs in our areas—so I am grateful to her for making that point.

In addition to those potential issues, we are also concerned about the differential treatment of social enterprises by age, with the £1.5 million cap being lifted for social enterprises under seven years old. Will the Minister explain why there is precisely this seven-year limit? It may in practice be that local authorities are relying on well-established, well-run and highly experienced social enterprises to help to provide essential services and facilities in conditions of extreme budget cuts, but it is those older enterprises that are potentially disadvantaged by this scheme. I hope that we are going to learn the exact decision-making process on this seven-year cut-off point. If it is specifically to advantage younger social enterprises, why is that the point? Is it the case that youth is being viewed as a proxy for the ability to take on risky activities? If so, where is the evidence basis for that?

I point again to the example of Aspire in my constituency that operates a range of programmes, including one that supports offenders going into work—people who would not normally necessarily be taken on by different employers. Surely that is a highly risky activity, but it is one at which they—as an established social enterprise—excel. Age does not necessarily appear to be a good proxy for the ability to take on riskier activities. If this seven-year cut-off is not there to encourage younger social enterprises, then why has it been instituted? We need more information on this.

Finally, we feel that additional evidence on the effectiveness of the anti-avoidance clauses within the new provisions is required. Social enterprises in the voluntary sector have a long history in areas such as hospice care, specialist domestic violence and mental health services where they have often genuinely driven innovation. Other social enterprises, such as those I mentioned earlier, have merely donated some of their profits to charity, rather than having a genuinely social or environmental mission. May we have more clarification on how abuse will be identified and dealt with?

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I do not want to speak for long, but I wanted to say that the hon. Member for Oxford East made a comprehensive, passionate and well-informed case on the amendment. If the Labour party seeks to press the amendment to a vote, we will support it. If the Minister responds to any of the comments by letter, I would be keen to see some of his answers, so I would appreciate being copied into that response.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Kirsty Blackman

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

As colleagues know, the clause changes, from 2018-19 onwards, the amount to which the dividend nil rate applies down to £2,000 under section 13A of the Income Tax Act 2007. The Opposition are particularly keen to hear the Government’s position on what the impact of the change is likely to be for the self-employed, who could be significantly affected. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that today.

That change is occurring in a context where existing changes to tax arrangements for self-employed people have not always been adequately dealt with. For example, HMRC’s electronic portal is frequently raised with us as an issue by tax practitioners. I do not mean to sound like a stuck record in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, but that is occurring in the context of considerable structural change in HMRC, and we know that many people are already struggling to get through to it to receive advice on making tax returns. This measure will clearly have interaction with other allowances, so greater clarification would be welcome.

That is why we are calling for a review. There needs to be more consideration of these issues and the tax system’s readiness to deal with the change. The amendment would therefore require HMRC to undertake a review of the effects of the change to the dividend nil rate in the clause.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I hear the hon. Lady’s words, but I would probably go even further. We do not agree that the change should be made to the dividend nil rate for a number of reasons. To begin with, those people who are self-employed may have been planning their self-employment for some time and may have been relying on the fact that the dividend nil rate is currently £5,000 in their financial planning. I do not think that there is enough notice for those people who have been making plans to become self-employed. It is not good enough from the Government. There is not enough notice, and the change they are making is pretty rubbish. People on pretty low incomes are going to be hit by some of the change. It is really important that, for example, people who are becoming self-employed for the first time have the nil rate allowance that they thought they were going to have. Those people have not been given enough time to make considerations.

The point raised by the hon. Lady in relation to getting through to HMRC is relevant, particularly given the closures of tax offices and the difficulty that my constituents are having when trying to contact HMRC. The guidance and forms on its website tend to be black and white, but the answer might be somewhere grey in the middle, so people have to phone to get the advice they need to fill in the form online appropriately. As I said, one of our concerns about the general movement towards making tax digital is how people can get advice on filling in online forms, never mind anything else. It is difficult for people to get through to HMRC, and that is a relevant consideration. We are inclined to vote against clause stand part when that comes. However, we would support the amendment, were it to be pressed to a vote.

[Mel Stride]

Before I respond to the amendment as well as the other points raised in the debate, let me first remind the Committee of what the clause seeks to achieve. As we have heard, it reduces the tax-free dividend allowance from £5,000 to £2,000 from April 2018. The change will ensure that support for investors is more effectively targeted and helps to deliver a fairer and more sustainable tax system. It will also help to reduce the tax differential between individuals working through their own company and those working as employees and self-employed. Crucially, it raises revenue to invest in our public services, raising approximately £2.6 billion out to 2021-22.

Since the tax-free dividend allowance was first announced, the landscape for small business owners, savers and investors has changed. The hon. Member for Oxford East specifically asked about support for businesses in the context of these changes. I can assure her that, as the party of business, we are wholeheartedly behind businesses. First, we have supported businesses by reducing the main corporation tax rate to 19%, which is now the lowest rate in the G20. Secondly, for savers, we have increased the amount of money that an individual can save or invest tax-free through an ISA, by the largest amount ever, to £20,000, nearly doubling the limit since 2010. Thirdly, we have continued to increase the personal allowance to £11,500 this April. We have committed to increasing it further, to £12,500, helping individuals keep more of the money that they earn.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised a specific point about response rates from HMRC to telephone contact. That is one of the measures that we are constantly looking at—how good are customer services—and I reassure her that it is one measure where HMRC performance has been relatively strong recently.

The clause should be considered in the context of that wider support for business and the need to deliver a tax system that works for everyone. We also need to take account of the ongoing trends in the different ways in which people are working. The design of the current tax system means that individuals who work through a company can pay significantly less tax than individuals who are self-employed or who work as employees. That can be true even when those individuals are doing very similar work.

At the autumn statement last year, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the faster growth of new incorporations, compared with the growth of employment, would reduce tax receipts by an additional £3.5 billion in 2021-22. By that year, HMRC estimated that the cost to the public finances of the existing company population will be more than £6 billion.

The Government are committed to helping all businesses to succeed, large and small, and in all parts of the United Kingdom, but to deliver and maintain low taxes for everyone, we need a tax base that is sustainable. The cost to the public finances of the growth in incorporation is clearly not sustainable. It is, therefore, right to make the small but sensible change to reduce some of the distortions to which I have referred.

As we have heard from the hon. Member for Oxford East, amendment 18 would commit HMRC to undertake a formal review of the effect of this change to the dividend nil rate by the end of June 2019. It has been specifically proposed that such a review should consider in particular the effect of the change on the self-employed. Such a formal review is not necessary.

As I have mentioned, the change needs to be considered in the context of the wider support that the Government have provided to business owners all across the United Kingdom, from reducing the rate of corporation tax to giving the self-employed the same access to the state pension as employees, worth almost £1,900 more per year, to introducing successive increases to the personal allowance, which is available in addition to the dividend allowance.

Indeed, the Government have given careful consideration to the impact of reducing the dividend allowance. A £2,000 allowance ensures that support is more effectively targeted following this change. Around 65% of all recipients of dividend income will continue to pay no tax on such income. That includes around 80% of all general investors. Typically, a general investor will still be able to invest around £50,000 without paying any tax on the resulting dividend income. Those investors who are affected will have, on average, investments worth around £100,000, which will put them in the top 10% of wealthiest households in the country. I therefore invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

The Government are delivering a tax system that works for everyone, including businesses, savers and investors. As the OBR has highlighted, there is a rising and unsustainable cost to the public finances of the growth in incorporation. The clause would help to address that by reducing the tax differential between those who work for a company structure and pay themselves in dividends and those who work as employees or self-employed, while ensuring that support for investors is more effectively targeted. I, therefore, urge the hon. Lady to withdraw amendment 18, while I commend clause 8 to the Committee.